1 The best of both worlds: combining approaches Daniel Mouqué Evaluation Unit, DG REGIO.
FINAL REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DG REGIO) · 2011.CE.16.B.AT.015) submitted to the...
Transcript of FINAL REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DG REGIO) · 2011.CE.16.B.AT.015) submitted to the...
EVALUATION OF THE MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS OVER THE LONGER TERM
IN 15 SELECTED REGIONS
(FROM 1989-1993 PROGRAMME PERIOD TO THE PRESENT)
(2011.CE.16.B.AT.015)
FINAL REPORT
TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (DG REGIO)
13 September 2013
European Policies Research Centre University of Strathclyde
Graham Hills Building 40 George Street Glasgow G1 1QE United Kingdom
Tel: +44-141-548 3339 Fax: +44-141-548 4898
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eprc/
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC01526
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC i LSE
PREFACE
This is the Final Report of the study ‘Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion
policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions’ (Contract no.
2011.CE.16.B.AT.015) submitted to the European Commission (DG Regio) by EPRC and LSE.
The report has been drafted by Professor John Bachtler EPRC), Professor Iain Begg (LSE), Dr
Laura Polverari (EPRC) and Professor David Charles (EPRC), with inputs from Dr Riccardo
Crescenzi (LSE), Professor Ugo Fratesi (LSE) and Dr Vassilis Monastiriotis (LSE). Research and
administrative support was provided by Stephen Miller (EPRC) and Alyson Ross (EPRC)
respectively.
The report draws together the conclusions from 15 case studies undertaken by an
international team of experts, as follows:
Austria – Burgenland Markus Gruber, Stephan Kupsa and Simon Pohn-Weidinger,
Convelop, Graz
Finland - Itä-Suomi Timo Hirvonen, Pasi Saukkonen, Heikki Eskelinen and Matti
Fritsch, University of Itä-Suomi (UEF)
France - Aquitaine Pascal Chazaud and Delphine Paumelle, independent
consultants, Toulouse
France - Nord-Pas de Calais Georges Mercier and Estelle Floirac, ADT Consult,
Echirolles
Germany - Nordrhein-
Westfalen
Oliver Schwab and Kristin Schwarze, Institute for
Structural Research (Ifs), Berlin
Germany – Sachsen-Anhalt Marina Gruševaja and Gerhard Heimpold, Halle Institute
for Economic Research, Halle
Greece - Dytiki Ellada Dimitris Lianos and Victoria Chorafa, LKN Analysis, Athens
Ireland Jim Fitzpatrick, Brendan Shiels and Niall Crosbie,
Fitzpatrick Associates, Dublin
Italy – Basilicata Simona Milio and Laura Todaro, London School of
Economics, London
Italy – Campania Laura Polverari, European Policies Research Centre,
Glasgow and Laura Tagle, independent consultant, Rome
Portugal – Algarve, Norte Regina Salvador and Ricardo Simões, New University of
Lisbon
Spain – Andalucía, Galicia Andrés Faíña, Jesús López-Rodríguez, Isidoro Romero, José
Fernández-Serrano, Cristina Calvo-Porral, Cosmin Bolea
and Paulino Montes-Solla, University of Coruña, Spain
United Kingdom – North East
of England
David Charles and Rona Michie, European Policies Research
Centre, Glasgow
The authors are grateful for helpful comments from the European Commission staff and
particularly to Veronica Gaffey, José Luis Calvo de Celis and Kai Stryczynski (DG REGIO
Evaluation Unit) and to all those who participated in the research (interviewees, survey
respondents, participants in the regional workshops, external experts and other
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC ii LSE
stakeholders who contributed to the research in various ways). The opinions expressed and
any errors remain the responsibility of the authors.
John Bachtler, Iain Begg, David Charles, Laura Polverari
September 2013
This report should be quoted as follows:
Bachtler, J., Begg, I., Polverari, L., and Charles, D. (2013) Evaluation of the Main
Achievements of Cohesion Policy Programmes and Projects over the Longer Term in 15
Selected Regions (from 1989-1993 Programme Period to the Present (2011.CE.16.B.AT.015),
Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio), European Policies Research Centre,
University of Strathclyde (Glasgow) and London School of Economics.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC iii LSE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
2. EVOLUTION OF NEEDS IN THE 15 REGIONS ............................................... 5
2.1 Initial Regional Development Problems and Needs ........................................ 5
2.1.1 Major underdevelopment ................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Sparsity and peripherality .................................................................. 7
2.1.3 Industrial decline and restructuring ...................................................... 8
2.1.4 Spatial and labour market disequilibria ................................................. 8
2.2 Development paths in GDP and unemployment: 1989-2008 ............................. 9
2.3 Analysing growth performance ............................................................... 12
2.4 Evolution of development needs ............................................................ 15
2.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 16
3. STRATEGIES AND RELEVANCE ..............................................................19
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 19
3.2 Strategies in Cohesion policy programmes ................................................. 19
3.3 The Cohesion policy strategies of the 15 regions ......................................... 20
3.4 Explicit v. implicit strategies and theoretical underpinnings .......................... 24
3.5 Evolution of objectives and priorities ...................................................... 26
3.6 SMART objectives ............................................................................... 28
3.7 Relevance ........................................................................................ 30
3.8 Complementarities & Synergies.............................................................. 36
3.8.1 Synergies among ERDF programmes ...................................................... 36
3.8.2 Synergies with ESF and other EU funds ................................................. 36
3.9 Synergies with domestic programmes ...................................................... 39
4. EXPENDITURE PATTERNS AND TRENDS ...................................................41
4.1 Overall expenditure trends ................................................................... 41
4.2 Expenditure by thematic axis ................................................................ 43
5. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES ...........................49
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 49
5.2 The nature of achievements ................................................................. 49
5.3 Reported achievements ....................................................................... 52
5.3.1 1989-1993 ..................................................................................... 52
5.3.2 1994-1999 ..................................................................................... 53
5.3.3 2000-2006 ..................................................................................... 55
5.3.4 2007-2013 ..................................................................................... 57
5.4 Thematic evaluation of achievements ...................................................... 57
5.4.1 Innovation..................................................................................... 58
5.4.2 Enterprise ..................................................................................... 60
5.4.3 Structural change ........................................................................... 61
5.4.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................ 65
5.4.5 Labour market ............................................................................... 68
5.4.6 Social cohesion ............................................................................... 68
5.4.7 Environment .................................................................................. 69
5.4.8 Spatial or territorial cohesion ............................................................ 70
5.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 71
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC iv LSE
6. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES ..........................75
6.1 Analysing effectiveness ....................................................................... 75
6.2 Overall effectiveness of intervention across 15 regions, 1989-present ............... 76
6.3 Effectiveness at programme level ........................................................... 79
6.4 Effectiveness at measure level .............................................................. 81
6.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 83
7. UTILITY ..........................................................................................85
7.1 Analysing utility ................................................................................ 85
7.2 Qualitative assessment of utility ............................................................ 89
7.2.1 Objective 1/Convergence regions ........................................................ 89
7.2.2 Regions which have phased out of Objective 1 status ................................ 90
7.2.3 Objective 2/RCE regions ................................................................... 92
7.3 Utility of interventions: quantitative assessments for selected indicators .......... 93
7.3.1 Unemployment ............................................................................... 94
7.3.2 Patents ........................................................................................ 95
7.3.3 Tourism ........................................................................................ 96
7.4 The effects of ERDF expenditure ............................................................ 97
7.5 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 99
8. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR COHESION POLICY ............................... 103
8.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 103
8.2 EQ1: To what extent did the programmes address regional needs and problems over time?) .................................................................................... 103
8.3 EQ2: To what extent do ERDF achievements meet regional objectives and needs in each programme period and across all periods? ....................................... 109
8.4 EQ3: What are the main lessons learnt on the effectiveness and utility of ERDF interventions in each region? .............................................................. 117
8.5 Implications for the future development of Cohesion policy ......................... 126
9. ANNEX 1: SUMMARIES OF REGIONAL NEEDS ........................................... 129
9.1 Regions facing major underdevelopment and endowment deficiencies ............ 129
9.2 Region facing transition or structural adjustment ..................................... 131
9.3 Rural or peripheral regions facing reconversion, agricultural modernisation and economic diversification ................................................................... 133
10. ANNEX 2: METHODS AND DATA .......................................................... 137
REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 141
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC v LSE
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparative evolution of GDP per capita (€’000, constant 2000 prices) ..................... 10
Figure 2: Comparative evolution of unemployment (%) ................................................. 11
Figure 3: Relative productivity and employment growth, 1991-2008 ............................ 13
Figure 4: Total Structural Funds allocations compared to actual expenditure by regional groups and across all 15 regions (1989-2010/11/12) – Million Euro, 2000 values .............. 42
Figure 5: Total Structural Funds expenditure per region and theme - Million Euro, 2000 values* ....................................................................................................... 45
Figure 6: Total Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ regions’ regions, by programme period and theme – percentage values* ............................................ 46
Figure 7: Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Phasing-in/out’ regions, by programme period and theme – percentage values* ........................................................................ 47
Figure 8: Total Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Objective 2/RCE’ regions, by programme period and theme, percentage values* ................................................................ 48
Figure 9: Relative unemployment rates in programme periods 1994-1999 and 2000-2006. 100
Figure 10: Relative number of patent per million inhabitants in programme periods 2994-99 and 2000-2006............................................................................................ 101
Figure 11: Relative number of nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments (by residents and non-residents) on population in programme periods 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 .............................................................................................................. 102
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Case study regions .............................................................................. 3
Table 2: Evolution of regional needs 1989-present (from 1991/1995 for later accession countries) ................................................................................................... 18
Table 3: Evolution of strategies: ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ Regions .......................... 32
Table 4: Evolution of strategies: ‘Phasing-in/out’ Regions ........................................ 33
Table 5: Evolution of strategies: ‘Objective 2/RCE’ Regions ...................................... 33
Table 6: Assessment of relevance: ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ Regions ........................ 34
Table 7: Assessment of relevance: ‘Phasing-in/out’ Regions ...................................... 35
Table 8: Assessment of relevance: ‘Objective 2/RCE’ Regions ................................... 35
Table 9: Annualised Structural Funds expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP ....... 43
Table 10: Reported jobs created or safeguarded for 1994-1999 .................................. 55
Table 11: Reported jobs created or safeguarded for 2000-2006 .................................. 56
Table 12: Cluster policy approaches in the 15 regions ............................................. 64
Table 13: Cluster policy approaches in the 15 regions (continued) .............................. 65
Table 14: Infrastructure support in the 15 regions .................................................. 67
Table 15: Relationship between achievements and objectives (ordinal correlation) ......... 78
Table 16: Programme-level assessment of effectiveness .......................................... 80
Table 17: Relationship between needs and achievements (ordinal correlation) ............... 88
Table 18: Examples of good practice projects ..................................................... 120
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC vi LSE
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC vii LSE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Against a background of inconclusive evidence of the results of EU Cohesion policy since
1989, the aim of this study has been to evaluate the main achievements of EU Cohesion
policy programmes and projects and their effectiveness and utility over the longer term in
15 selected regions of the EU15. Specifically, the main objectives of the study were
twofold: (i) to examine the achievements of all programmes co-financed by the ERDF and,
where applicable, the Cohesion Fund, which have been implemented in the 15 selected
regions from 1989 to 2012 (regional programmes and national programmes implemented in
the regions); and (ii) to assess the relevance of programmes and the effectiveness and
utility of programme achievements. The following section summarises the main findings of
the study dealing, in turn, with the needs of the regions, the relevance of strategies, then
effectiveness and utility of interventions, and the conclusions drawn and policy lessons
identified.
Regional needs and the relevance of strategies
At the end of the 1980s, each of the 15 case study regions faced particular challenges,
reflecting their geographical situation and historical background. The main types of needs
can be categorised as: major underdevelopment and indicators of disadvantage ranging
from a lack of basic infrastructure and services, to skills deficits, often compounded by
peripherality or significant internal disparities, in the regions of Dytiki Ellada, Campania,
Norte, Andalucía, Basilicata, Algarve and Ireland; restructuring in regions facing either
transition from a centrally planned economy (Sachsen-Anhalt) or from an economy
dominated by large, declining traditional industries (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Nord-Pas-de-
Calais and North East England); and agricultural modernisation and economic
diversification in predominantly rural or peripheral regions - mainly Aquitaine, Burgenland,
Itä-Suomi and Galicia.
All the case study regions were at a relative disadvantage at the start of the period, having
significantly lower levels of development relative to either national or EU averages, but
with significant differences within the group. Up to 2008, most regions performed worse
than the EU average in GVA growth over the period. Only Ireland demonstrated a clear
virtuous cycle of above-average performance for both output productivity and employment.
Others saw some growth based on increased employment or improved productivity, but
most struggled to outperform the EU average. Since 2008 many of the regions have seen
poorer performance as a result of the recession.
The early ERDF programmes of the case study regions had relatively basic, generic
strategies, often with limited assessment of needs; they tried to encompass diverse
stakeholder interests with objectives and priorities that were open to interpretation.
Initially, there was little pressure to change, and many strategies were remarkably stable
during the 1990s. However, programming for 2000-2006 saw substantial strategic
reassessments in several regions and even more so for 2007-2013, driven by the Community
Strategic Guidelines or changes in eligibility status.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC viii LSE
The conceptual basis for programmes has often been weak. Throughout the period since
1989, strategies were not underpinned explicitly by theory or development models, but
rather by prevailing assumptions of economic development. Nevertheless, this study found
that all the programmes were at least partially relevant to regional needs (in certain
periods or for parts of the programme), and almost half the programmes were relevant
across the whole period from 1989 to 2012. The main thematic trends over time have
involved a greater emphasis on R&D and innovation, more support for entrepreneurship and
more sophisticated SME interventions, the mainstreaming of urban regeneration and a
specific focus on community development.
In the early periods, programme objectives were generally neither specific nor measurable
due to a lack of quantified targets and non-existent or inadequate monitoring systems. The
attainability of objectives was also questionable: strategies were mostly overambitious and
did not recognise the limited potential contribution of the ERDF programmes in the wider
economic and policy contexts. Even if quantified, programme targets often required
adjustments during the programme period. However, the vagueness of objectives allowed
managing authorities to report ‘success’ or interpret effectiveness in different ways.
Programme objectives were usually not timely, in the sense that achievement of objectives
was likely to take much longer than the programme period - a factor that was not always
acknowledged. While the ‘SMART’ character of programme objectives improved over time,
it is currently still some way from being fully achieved, either because of deficiencies in
programme design or delays and difficulties with the operationalisation of monitoring
systems.
In the Convergence regions, the ERDF actions usually consisted of a combination of regional
and national thematic OPs. Good integration and synergy were facilitated by several
factors: the existence in each programme period of an overarching strategy; a dominant
role of national government departments in designing the programmes; and/or a
comprehensive planning system. However, this was not the case in all countries. Among
Regional Competitiveness & Employment (RCE) regions, there was a lack of coordination in
the earlier periods between Objective 2 and Objective 5b programmes in adjacent areas, as
well as with Community Initiatives (e.g. Aquitaine). The latter did have an important role,
though, in testing new concepts and types of project that were later mainstreamed in the
core ERDF programmes.
Synergies with domestic programmes were largely determined by the need for matching
funding. Consequently, ERDF and domestic programmes co-funded projects or business aid
schemes. The relationship between EU and domestic policies depended partly on the
importance of ERDF funding for economic development. In several less-developed regions,
Structural and Cohesion Funds were often the only significant policy support for regional
development; domestic regional policies either did not exist or were fully subsumed into
Cohesion policy (e.g. Norte). In some RCE regions, where EU funding was a minor part of
economic development support, the relationship between EU and domestic regional policy
was difficult, with tensions during programming because of different objectives, priorities
or funding modalities and a lack of coherence.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC ix LSE
Effectiveness
Effectiveness is defined as the extent to which programme objectives were achieved. This
was assessed by examining the achievements in relation to the overarching goals of
programmes and the targets relating to specific measures and/or priorities.
Over the period from 1989 to the present, more than €145 billion of ERDF are estimated to
have been spent in the 15 regions. Infrastructure spending predominated up to 2006 in the
Convergence/Objective 1 regions, followed closely by enterprise support and a growing
proportion of expenditure on social cohesion and labour market support from 2000 onwards.
The situation was similar in the Transition regions at the outset, but with a more diversified
profile over time, notably enterprise support, structural adjustment and innovation. The
three RCE/Objective 2 regions focused heavily on enterprise support in the first three
programme periods, but with a growing shift towards innovation and social cohesion.
In 1989-93, the reporting of achievements was almost non-existent. Over time, programme
authorities developed targets and indicators, both of outputs and results, although this not
undertaken systematically or comprehensively across all regions. Monitoring processes
improved, as did the sophistication of targeting, the attention paid to economic results and
choice of output indicators. However, the reliability of indicator data remains problematic
due to definitional, recording, aggregation and analytical flaws.
Objectives were often over-optimistic in the early periods, reported achievements were
sometimes only a fraction of the targets originally set. In the later programmes, objectives
and targets were calibrated more realistically. The study’s aggregation of the qualitative
assessments undertaken in each of the case study regions suggests that programmes were
effective in meeting objectives, even if only defined in terms of outputs.
However, the degree to which needs were met varied considerably across regions and
programme periods. It is notable that those objectives which relied on public sector
intervention – for example, the development of physical and business infrastructure and
services, or environmental improvement – appear to have been more readily achieved.
Regions were able to set targets for such spending and largely meet them, although some
projects were so large as to run over more than one programme (e.g. Dytiki Ellada).
Objectives dependent on entrepreneurial activity or funding by the private sector have a
mixed record; there were common problems in achieving objectives relating to the business
start-up rate, innovation and technology transfer, and employment creation. Success in
promoting innovation depended on the development of a regional innovation system rather
than just investment in public research (e.g. North East England), which some regions were
slow to appreciate. Regions also failed to recognise the need for a systemic approach to
entrepreneurship, encompassing the promotion of an enterprise culture as well as training,
finance and incubators.
Utility
Utility is defined as the extent to which programmes led to impacts that are in line with
‘society's needs and the socio-economic problems to be solved’, which may differ from the
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC x LSE
goals explicitly stated in the programmes or which may not have been stated explicitly in
the programmes.
Four regions classed as undergoing transition/restructuring were able to counter the
legacies of their industrial past, but achieved less in relation to social goals (Sachsen-
Anhalt, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Nord-Pas-de-Calais and North East England). In rural
regions, there was undoubted improvement in connectivity within and between regions, but
also tensions between agglomeration in urban centres and the continuing needs of rural
areas (Aquitaine, Burgenland, Itä-Suomi and Galicia). There were more differences in the
results among the regions that had followed broad-based strategies to deal with diverse
needs, partly because of the exceptional performance of Ireland. In the other regions
(Dytiki Ellada, Campania, Norte, Andalucía, Basilicata, and Algarve), a key finding is that
the utility of interventions can often be fragile, emphasising the long time-scales involved
in profound transformation and the need for perseverance.
The case studies demonstrate that ERDF has made a significant contribution to regional
development; quality of life is better, certainly in the regions which invested massively in
basic infrastructure and services (e.g. Andalucía). However, in virtually all regions, the
success in addressing certain needs and problems were only steps on a longer journey of
transformation. Most commonly, the regional research found that restructuring was
incomplete, and employment creation was insufficient. Also, specific problems remain,
such as demographic challenges, low innovation, poverty and organised crime (e.g.
Campania). Further, it should be noted that changes in regional needs and problems were
sometimes territorially uneven. A major concern is that maintaining the capital investment
and institutions established with Cohesion policy support is a challenge for some regions,
and that the economic crisis and fiscal constraints are undoing some of gains. Finally, there
is evidence that ERDF played a part in changing the culture and mentality of regions,
particularly their internal and external image (e.g. Nord-Pas-de-Calais).
Conclusions and lessons
The research demonstrated improvements in the sophistication of strategies (evidence
base, analysis and strategic focus) and programme management (project selection,
monitoring, evaluation) over the study period, with considerable learning over time, albeit
unevenly across the 15 regions. All of the regional case studies cited examples of successful
interventions or projects, collectively spanning the spectrum of economic development
support. However, there were also many examples of poor practices where regions were
slow to learn from what was happening elsewhere. A major difficulty, reported in almost all
regions, was the fragmentation of funding across too many interventions or small projects.
Over time, there was greater recognition of the need to concentrate funding or fewer and
larger projects.
The most important lesson is the benefit of sound and rigorous strategic planning. The
research also highlighted the importance of a development model which recognises that
structural adjustment is a societal as well as an economic process, the need for realism
about the long-term timescale required for structural change, and the need for strategies
to be flexible.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC xi LSE
A further important factor is an enabling domestic policy framework and the existence or
development of institutional capacity and leadership, crucial to successful programming
and implementation. Capacity deficits were particularly evident in project generation,
appraisal and selection, the monitoring of physical outcomes and the development of an
evaluation culture.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC xii LSE
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 1 LSE
1. INTRODUCTION
The context for this study is that, after more than 20 years of implementing EU Cohesion
policy in the EU15, the evidence for the effectiveness of the policy is inconclusive.
Academic research and evaluation studies have reached widely differing conclusions on the
results of interventions through Structural and Cohesion Funds. At the same time, public
debate on the performance of the policy has increased, most evidently in the discussions on
the reforms of Cohesion policy in 2005-06 and 2012-13. Against this background, the aim of
this study has been to evaluate the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and
projects and their effectiveness and utility over the longer term in 15 selected regions of
the EU15, from 1989 to 2012. For twelve of the regions, the research covers the three full
programme periods following the 1988 reform of Cohesion policy (1989-1994, 1994-1999 and
2000-2006) and much of the current (2007-2013) programme period. Of the three remaining
regions, the time period for one (in East Germany) is from 1991, and for the other two (in
Austria and Finland respectively) is from 1995.
Specifically, the objectives of the study were twofold:
to examine the achievements of all programmes co-financed by the ERDF and,
where applicable, the Cohesion Fund, which have been implemented in the 15
selected regions from 1989 to 2012 (regional programmes and national programmes
implemented in the regions); and
to assess the relevance of programmes and the effectiveness and utility of
programme achievements.
In line with the Terms of Reference, the study began with the development of a theoretical
and methodological approach for the research, involving a literature review and stock-take
on programme performance and the development of methodology to evaluate achievements
from various programmes. The methodological approach adopted was a theory-based
evaluation, the essence of which is to assess whether the programmes implemented by the
regions achieved what they were designed to do and whether what they achieved dealt
with the needs of the region (as identified at the start of the process). What is distinctive
about this methodology is that it does not try to establish a direct causal link between the
Cohesion policy interventions and changes in standard macroeconomic variables at regional
level, such as GDP per head or the unemployment rate. Many previous econometric studies
have attempted to evaluate regional policy in this way, but have typically been unable to
arrive at unambiguous conclusions, because of the sheer difficulty of identifying both what
would have happened in the absence of the regional policy intervention (the counter-
factual) and in disentangling the effects of Cohesion policy from other influences on
regional performance.
Whilst not denying the importance of knowing whether or not regional policy contributes to
growth and employment, the focus of theory-based evaluation (as interpreted for this
study) is on understanding what it was that policy-makers sought to change, and how what
was done was expected to transform the region. It addresses the logic behind the policy
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 2 LSE
interventions, whether such logic was appropriate for regional circumstances, and how
policy evolved as initial needs were met and new ones had to be confronted. The approach
recognises that regional development theories have themselves evolved over the period
studied, as has the wider context in which Cohesion policy is implemented, notably because
of major EU strategies such as Lisbon/Europe 2020 (Nordregio, 2009; Begg, 2010; Mendez,
2010).
In the early years of the period under study, enhancement of infrastructure was regarded
as a necessary condition for regional development and was a favoured policy, especially in
many lagging regions (see, for example, Biehl, 1992; de la Fuente and Vives, 1995; Bachtler
and Gorzelak, 2007). The logic behind these interventions was that unless regions had
sufficient levels of physical capital, they would be systematically disadvantaged in
comparison with more developed competitor regions, not least in attracting inward
investment. Human capital investment and efforts to promote enterprise were also typical
of this era. By the end of the 1990s, underlying theories of regional development were
paying increasing attention to sources of endogenous growth, with innovation and research-
led economic development stressed in policy packages (Malecki, 1997 – and many other
publications; Cheshire and Magrini, 2000; Rodriguez-Pose, 2001). These orientations
accorded with the Lisbon agenda and, to varying degrees, also gave greater prominence to
social cohesion as a determinant of economic growth.
The theory-based approach was explained in more detail in the Inception Report and the
First Intermediate Interim Report of this study. Based on it, the core of the research was 15
regional case studies conducted in three types of region:
regions eligible for Objective 1/Convergence support from 1989-1993 to the present
(six regions);
regions eligible for Objective 1 or 6 at one time, but now have Phasing-in/out or
Regional Competitiveness & Employment status (six regions); and
regions partially or wholly eligible for Objective 2 / RCE status from 1989-1993 to
the present (three regions).
The list of case study regions agreed with DG Regio is set out in Table 1. Two of these were
nominated as ‘pilot regions’ – North East England and Basilicata – where a first phase of
research was conducted to provide lessons and a model that could be incorporated into the
other case studies. In practice, North East England was the main pilot case study that
served this purpose.
The case study research was carried out by 15 regional teams working in each of the
regions, working to a methodology prepared by the EPRC-LSE core team. Using a mix of
desk research and fieldwork interviews with a wide range of respondents and consultative
workshops, each case study involved five main elements:
a context analysis of regional features and needs;
a programme analysis of the evolution of strategies and expenditure;
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 3 LSE
an analysis of reported and actual achievements;
an assessment of achievements against objectives and needs; and
an assessment of complementarities and synergies of the funding and the lessons to
be learnt.
A central thread of the analysis was the use of ‘thematic axes’ (or themes) as a framework
for understanding the programmes and their achievements. These were: innovation;
enterprise; structural adjustment; infrastructure; environment; labour market; social
cohesion; and territorial cohesion. The case study research was supported by central
guidance on all aspects of the research, including an analysis for each case study of
regional needs based on international data sources, and an online questionnaire survey of
stakeholders. The outcome of the research has been brought together in case study reports
for each region, published separately.
Table 1: Case study regions
Country Objective 1 / Convergence
Phasing–in/out Objective 2 / RCE
Austria Burgenland
Finland Itä-Suomi
France Nord-Pas-de-Calais Aquitaine
Germany Sachsen-Anhalt Nordrhein-Westfalen
Greece Dytiki Ellada
Ireland Ireland
Italy Campania Basilicata
Portugal Norte Algarve
Spain Andalucía, Galicia
United Kingdom North-East England
The final task for the study has been a cross-case study assessment of the relevance of
programme strategies and of the effectiveness and utility of programme achievements. This
has been undertaken by the core team, principally through a synthesis of the findings of the
15 case study reports but also a quantitative analysis of the expenditure data and
Cambridge Econometrics data to assess the effectiveness and utility of the ERDF funding
over the study period.
This is the Final Report of the study draws together the findings from the case studies. As
with the individual case studies, the structure begins with an overview of the evolution of
regional needs, the programme strategies and expenditure. It then sets out the main
achievements of the programmes, and – on the basis of the quantitative research,
supplemented by qualitative findings – analyses their effectiveness and utility.
Complementarities and synergies, assessment of critical success factors and weaknesses,
and the lessons learnt - with detailed suggestions for the improvement of programme
design, implementation, results-orientation and achievements - are also presented. The
last section draws together the conclusions of the report.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 4 LSE
A final cautionary point is that this report is a synthesis of the findings. For the most, it
does not seek to aggregate data or information on the results of programmes across periods
or countries. The range of different sources used to reconstruct the evolution of
programmes from 1989 to 2012, and the questionable accuracy of some of the data, made
this impossible. Instead, the report seeks to tell a story of how Structural and Cohesion
Funds have been used and what they achieved in the different regions covered by the
study.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 5 LSE
2. EVOLUTION OF NEEDS IN THE 15 REGIONS
Evaluation of the achievements of Cohesion policy must start with an assessment of the
needs and problems of the regions assisted and how they evolved over time. This chapter
draws together evidence from the case study research in each region, combined with EU-
level statistical data, to illustrate how regional needs or contexts have evolved since 1989.
The chapter begins by reviewing regional development problems and needs in the mid/late
1980s, grouping the problems under the headings of major underdevelopment, sparsity and
peripherality, industrial decline and restructuring, and spatial and labour market
disequilibria. The chapter then examines the development paths of the regions according to
GDP per head and unemployment over the period 1989-2008. Growth performance is
analysed according to a framework introduced by Camagni (1991) and developed by Affuso
et al (2011) which identifies six patterns of regional growth; initial needs and their
evolution are discussed according to these six patterns. Further insights are provided
through a qualitative assessment of the evolution of regional needs under the eight
thematic axes which are used throughout the study as a framework for evaluation.
2.1 Initial Regional Development Problems and Needs
At the start of the study period (mid/late 1980s), all the case study regions were relatively
disadvantaged, as befits recipients of ERDF funding. They had significantly lower levels of
development, as measured by GDP per capita for example, whether relative to their
national averages (e.g. North-East England), relative to the EU average (e.g. Dytiki Ellada)
or both. In the late 1980s, GDP per capita, measured in constant 2000 prices, ranged from
less than €10,000 in the case study regions of Spain (Andalucía, Galicia), Portugal (Algarve,
Norte) and Greece (Dytiki Ellada) to near or above €20,000 in Nordrhein-Westfalen, North
East England and Aquitaine – against an average EU15 GDP per head in 1989 of €17,239
(according to Cambridge Econometrics data). The principal explanation for these
differences is the relative prosperity of the respective Member States, and these national
differences mean that there is a degree of heterogeneity among the regions – both those
initially designated as Objective 1 and those designated as Objective 2 in 1988.
The nature of needs and the main economic-development problems facing these regions
varied greatly. There were differences in fundamentals, such as accessibility, various forms
of infrastructure, industrial composition/specialisation, as well as in the relative
performances of national economies. Partly for the latter reason, the regions differed
significantly in terms of the vibrancy of their labour market. Unemployment rates were
significantly higher – and well above the national and European averages – in de-
industrialising North East England, in remote and sparsely populated Itä-Suomi, and in the
more agricultural economy of Andalucía. However, they were significantly lower (and
closer to the national averages) in regions such as Burgenland, Dytiki Ellada, Algarve and
Norte. In some regions, unemployment (and employment loss) had started to become a
more pressing issue because of long-term structural shifts. This was the case in Sachsen-
Anhalt (because of the post-communist transition), Basilicata (because of falling
agricultural employment) and Campania (which under-performed relative to the national
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 6 LSE
average because of weak industrial development, but where the unemployment rate may
have been overstated because of the size of the shadow economy). Although less
pronounced, a rise in unemployment associated with structural change in the economy also
characterised the two case study regions of France (especially Nord-Pas-de-Calais).
Despite having, broadly speaking, similar initial conditions of relative underdevelopment (as
measured by GDP per head) and/or unemployment, the case study regions represented a
broad range of structural characteristics and associated needs. Drawing together the
analyses undertaken, four main groups of problems and sets of development needs can be
identified among the three groups of regions investigated:
a) major underdevelopment characterised by shortfalls across all indicators;
b) sparsity of population and peripherality (either geographical or in terms of
connectivity), with the two often going together;
c) a generally weak economic base, manifested in an over-specialisation in declining
traditional heavy industries, agriculture or other low value-added traditional
activities, coupled with an under-representation in high-growth, higher value-added
sectors; and
d) the presence of disequilibria in regional economies, such as problems of skill
mismatch (typically due to deindustrialisation) or of inactivity and weak labour
supply, or spatial disequilibria such as between urbanised coastlines and rural
interiors.
However, many of the regions exhibited more than one sort of problem or development
need with, for example, interactions between weak connectivity and declining industries
(Basilicata) or between the decline of a traditional industrial base, skills mismatch,
environmental problems and weak entrepreneurship (Nord Pas de Calais). Some regions
such as Campania, Andalucía or Norte fit into all four groups. In this sense, needs can
cumulate in a manner which constitutes multiple deprivation. Hence the distinctions are
less a typology of regions as such, but more an identification of the dimensions on which
each of the regions can be assessed.
2.1.1 Major underdevelopment
The most fundamental challenges were faced by regions characterised by major
underdevelopment and disadvantages ranging from a lack of basic infrastructure and
services, to deficits in skills, often compounded by peripherality (national or European) or
significant internal disparities. Regions in this category were Dytiki Ellada, Campania,
Norte, Andalucía, Galicia, Basilicata, Algarve and Ireland, all classified in 1989 as
Objective 1, as was Sachsen-Anhalt after German unification, in recognition of the breadth
of their challenges. The regions experienced needs across almost all of the eight thematic
axes, although the character of some of those needs may have been different to those in
the other groups of regions. An example is a relative lack of entrepreneurial activity which
was a problem for almost all regions, but which was typically very different in the
underdeveloped regions compared with regions dominated by larger firms in declining
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 7 LSE
industries. By contrast, the problem in the underdeveloped regions was that the enterprise
base not only consisted largely of small and micro businesses which were traditional in
nature, but also lacked connections to large companies or to external networks.
The breadth of problems results in difficulties in using analysis of needs to set priorities in
the development of strategies, despite the relatively generous resources allocated to these
Objective 1 regions in the earlier programmes. Regions had to make tough decisions about
which needs were to be prioritised, often with the added constraint of conforming to
Structural Funds regulations and navigating multiple Operational Programmes with
objectives which could be difficult to reconcile. Inconsistent or incompatible domestic
economic development policies also created complications. Prioritisation would also usually
have consequences for the internal disparities or disequilibria due to the difficulty of
raising performance on several thematic axes across the whole region simultaneously. A
particularly hard choice lay in deciding between providing general social and infrastructure
development across the whole region, and a focus on industrial development which could
require agglomeration in selected urban centres or (for example in Campania) choosing
between development models targeted at large or small firms.
2.1.2 Sparsity and peripherality
A second set of problems characterised regions with relatively low population densities,
weak urban agglomerations (for some), rurality and depopulation. The regions concerned
were Galicia, Algarve, Basilicata, Itä-Suomi, Dytiki Ellada, Burgenland and Aquitaine – all
of which are relatively remote within their national setting. With the exception of
Aquitaine, which was designated as Objective 2 and 5b, these were regions eligible for the
highest levels of Cohesion policy funding because they were Objective 1 or Objective 6
regions. For most of these, transport infrastructure and internal and/or external
connectivity (to major markets) was also a significant problem. A major challenge for these
regions was to develop new models of development able to boost employment opportunities
in rural areas, often through tourism, but also through the development of localised centres
for industry and services.
Over the study period, most of these regions saw improvements in transport infrastructure,
from modest to substantial. Nevertheless, the demographic patterns and the problems of
connectivity have not been reversed in all cases; here, the very long-term nature of the
investment need has to be taken into account, as major projects have spanned two or more
programme periods. The problems of rurality, accessibility and population sparsity affecting
regions such as Dytiki Ellada, Basilicata and Itä-Suomi are facts of life with which they are
likely to have to contend indefinitely, given their geography. In contrast, the regions of
Aquitaine, Galicia and Algarve (as well as those of Norte and Andalucía) have managed to
combine improvements in transport infrastructure with a more general improvement in
accessibility and geographical and functional connectivity. These regions also saw notable
improvements in the technological content of their production base and – at least to an
extent – improvements in their sectoral specialisations and extent of industrial
diversification. A similar claim can be made for the semi-rural but generally speaking more
developed regions of Aquitaine and Burgenland. The remoter rural parts of some other
regions had some exposure to the problems of peripherality (North East England) or
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 8 LSE
accessibility difficulties (Basilicata, Campania and Andalucía). These trajectories suggest
that among the regions exiting from Objective 1/Convergence status, some have
substantially overcome connectivity problems (Algarve), but others have not (Basilicata).
2.1.3 Industrial decline and restructuring
The regions which faced problems relating to industrial decline and restructuring were
North East England, Nordrhein-Westfalen Nord-Pas-de-Calais, and Campania as well as
the region of Sachsen-Anhalt – although from the very different starting point of transition
to a market economy. Elsewhere agricultural decline was a common problem, although
regions such as Norte also suffered from the decline of traditional and craft-based
industries. The regions subject to these sorts of restructuring challenges were not confined
to the Objective 2/RCE group, making clear that there can be multiple causes of difficulties
among the three groups of regions covered in this study. Industrial restructuring problems
were perhaps more difficult to address, as they reflected skills mismatch in the labour
market and, eventually, inactivity and structural unemployment. For the regions
transitioning from traditional industry or centrally planned economies, the needs tended to
be more focused around economic transformation (enterprise, innovation, skills) and the
consequences of restructuring in terms of derelict land and replacing outdated
infrastructure. Social needs were usually a secondary issue and consisted more of how to
deal with the consequences of deindustrialisation (pockets of high unemployment) rather
than widespread needs for hospitals and schools. The central issues were halting decline
and rebuilding employment, and converting the often polluted sites of old industry (e.g.
mines and steelworks) for new industries and incubators.
The regions in this category all made substantial progress in improving the business
environment, upgrading their technology content and diversifying their production base.
For some, this was combined with improvements in transport infrastructure and functional
connectivity (Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Sachsen-Anhalt, North East England). For these regions,
the role of national economic performance was perhaps more central, as national growth
was necessary to assist the restructuring and opening-up of the economies of these regions.
It appears that outcomes improved faster in cases where the public sector took a more
active role in addressing problems of industrial decline, lack of diversification and
unemployment (e.g. North East England). However, in the current context of crisis and
associated austerity budgets, the sustainability of these supporting mechanisms is under
strain and familiar economic problems may be resurfacing
2.1.4 Spatial and labour market disequilibria
Spatial imbalances or disequilibria in the labour market were, in some cases, particularly
pressing in 1989 in some of the deindustrialising regions of the ‘north’ and in some of the
more traditional economies of the ‘south’. Spatial asymmetries were evident in the regions
of Galicia, Campania and Norte (coastal-inland dichotomy), in Dytiki Ellada (Peloponnese-
mainland dichotomy), as well as in Aquitaine, North East England, Basilicata and –
especially – in Ireland (urban-rural dichotomy). Some of these regions sought to address
these problems mainly through investment in internal transport infrastructure (e.g. Dytiki
Ellada and Basilicata). In other cases, spatial imbalances were addressed not only through
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 9 LSE
transport infrastructure investment but also through industrial restructuring (e.g. through
supply-chains between the more traditional and the more dynamic/high-tech segments of
the local economies), economic diversification measures (e.g. to support tourism in rural
areas), social infrastructure (e.g. nurseries, schools, hospitals) and regeneration of town
centres. For some regions, industrial restructuring led to the emergence of supply side
pressures and skill shortages (e.g. Galicia and Andalucía). Such skill mismatch pressures
have also emerged, or persisted, in the ‘north’ regions of Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Sachsen-Anhalt and North East England.
2.2 Development paths in GDP and unemployment: 1989-2008
The evolution of GDP per head and unemployment rates for the 15 regions relative to
national trends and for the group as a whole is shown for each region in Figure 1 and Figure
2. Given the diversity of the regions examined, and the corresponding performances and
needs, as well as the long time-frame of the analysis, it is difficult to establish a general
trend, or classification. Although analysis of the comparative evolution of the case study
regions reveals a notable degree of mobility, regional evolutions appear to be neither linear
(e.g. towards general improvement) nor universal (in the sense of applying similarly to all
regions). To the extent that a general pattern can be identified, it is that regional evolution
has largely followed the wider national trends.
In terms of economic indicators, the regions of Italy (Basilicata and Campania) and Greece
(Dytiki Ellada) experienced substantially lower rates of economic growth compared both to
the national and European averages and thus fell further behind, despite being amongst the
top recipients of regional assistance (and despite the fact that episodes/periods of
convergence can be observed – e.g. Basilicata for the period 1992-1999 and again in the
mid-2000s). Other regions generally followed their national trends, including for example
the regions of Spain (although here there was still some divergence), Nordrhein-Westfalen
(which in specific years outpaced national growth rates) and Burgenland (which, while still
below the Austrian average level of GDP per capita, has converged relative to the EU15).
This suggests that whether or not a region is in the Convergence or RCE group has not been
the critical issue. Divergence from the national average but with good growth performance
characterised regions such as the North East England, Itä-Suomi and the two case study
regions in France, while growth performance was much stronger, leading to fast
convergence towards the European average, in Sachsen-Anhalt (especially in the 1990s
after the ‘transition shock’) and in Ireland (especially since the mid-1990s).
There is no easy link between the initial status of a region and its subsequent performance.
By definition, the regions classed in 2007-13 as Phasing-in/out manifestly achieved more
than some of their counterparts, because from similar starting points they had grown
sufficiently to exit convergence status by mid-2000s. Yet as the most recent data show,
these gains proved to be vulnerable to the crisis. For Itä-Suomi and Burgenland, relatively
strong national performance was influential in their convergence with EU averages. Equally,
a question that underlies much of the analysis which follows is why some of the regions that
remain in the Objective 1/Convergence group did not break out of this category despite
similar levels of support from Cohesion policy and similar initial positions.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 10 LSE
Figure 1: Comparative evolution of GDP per capita (€’000, constant 2000 prices)
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 11 LSE
Figure 2: Comparative evolution of unemployment (%)
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 12 LSE
The relationship between growth performance and other indicators was surprisingly varied.
In Itä-Suomi, Ireland and North-East England growth was accompanied by a strong and
steady reduction in unemployment rates, which continued uninterrupted at least until the
financial crisis of 2008-2009. By contrast, unemployment in Sachsen-Anhalt rose rapidly in
the early 1990s and stayed high at least until the mid-2000s, as economic growth was driven
much more by gains in labour productivity than in employment; while it followed an upward
trend (but much more modestly so, until the recent crisis) also in Dytiki Ellada.
Unemployment followed a rather cyclical path in most other regions. It rose
disproportionately in the 1990s but started declining in the 2000s in the case study regions
of France, Italy and Spain. The two Portuguese regions experienced similar, but less
pronounced cyclical fluctuations during the 1990s, but after the launch of the euro both
saw relatively rapid increases in unemployment rates. In Burgenland and Nordrhein-
Westfalen unemployment rates fluctuated around the historical mean, remaining close to
the national average.
2.3 Analysing growth performance
Further insights into the dynamics of output and employment growth can be gleaned by
examining changes over time relative to the EU average. Patterns of employment and
productivity growth can be shown in a single chart1 by plotting productivity growth against
employment growth. This decomposition can reveal whether change in the economy stems
from productivity gains arising from new and efficient firms or by the ‘dropping off’ of
inefficient production.
This approach presents productivity and employment change relative to the EU27 over the
period 1991 to 2008 (see Figure 3). A region may develop at the same rate as the EU Gross
Value-Added either if both productivity and employment grow at the same rate as the EU
average, or if productivity increases at a lower rate, but employment does so at a
proportionally higher-than-average rate, and vice versa. This is shown by the diagonal line.
If a region is above this line, it increases its total GVA more than the EU27 average; if it is
below the line, the GVA growth rate is below average.
1 In a form introduced by Camagni (1991) for manufacturing and extended to the whole regional economy by Affuso et al. (2011). Relative employment growth is on the horizontal axis, and relative productivity growth is on the vertical axis. A 135° negatively sloped line passing through the origin denotes regional gross value added (GVA) growth equal to the average. For this analysis, productivity and employment data were used for the period 1991-2008. 1991 data rather than 1989 were used as the starting point as the 1989 data were not available for one of the regions. 2008 was used as the end point rather than 2010, which is the most recent year available, as the 2009 data shows dramatic drops in most of the regions as a result of the global financial crisis and hence the final year would have a dramatic and in some respects a random impact on the overall trend.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 13 LSE
Figure 3: Relative productivity and employment growth, 1991-2008
The performance of the 15 regions is assessed here over the majority of the study period.
Analysis of performance in each of the programme periods can give quite varied results as
some regions grew more rapidly in one period rather than another. As these outcomes are
lagged from the spending, an analysis by programme period is likely to be misleading, so
the general trend is the main focus of this discussion.
Figure 3 indicates that most of the regions performed worse than the EU average in growth
of GVA over the period (that is they lie below the diagonal line), although their distribution
across the graph indicates different patterns of regional economic development. Plainly,
there is no straightforward inference to be drawn about the three categories of regions
studied. Phasing-in/out regions are to be found on both sides of both the dimensions of the
chart, while the three RCE regions are close to the centre of the chart, albeit a little
below. Aquitaine, which is more rural (with a preponderance of Objective 5b funding
during the 1990s), does better than the other two RCE regions with regard to employment
Relative productivity
growth 1991-2008
Relative employment growth
1991-2008
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 14 LSE
growth. Among the group of Convergence regions, Andalucía stand out for its employment
growth while Sachsen-Anhalt is the major exception to the underperformance in
productivity for most of the others in this group.
In this chart there are six analytically distinct segments, depending on whether the region
is located above or below the EU average for each of the two main axes, and above or
below the diagonal line. This gives rise to a terminology, developed by Affuso et al. (2011),
which can be used to classify the development paths of the regions. The findings for the 15
regions are as follows. Seven of the case study regions lay above the diagonal line of EU
average productivity and employment performance, in segments termed ‘virtuous circle’,
‘economic take-off’ and ‘restructuring’.
Virtuous cycle is used to describe a regional economy that exceeds EU average
growth as a result of higher-than-average growth of both productivity and
employment. In the period under review, which was before the onset of the
sovereign debt crisis, only Ireland, which succeeded in exiting Objective 1 status,
was able to show a consistently good performance in the virtuous cycle segment,
with growth in both employment and productivity, although with a bigger emphasis
on employment. Both Irish regions (Border, Midland, and Western; and Southern
and Eastern) are shown here, and both performed similarly well. Galicia lies just
inside this segment with a small average relative growth in productivity, but little
relative growth in employment.
Economic take-off is when lower-than-average productivity performance is offset
by very good employment performance, so that the effect on total value added is
positive. Andalucía and the Algarve both show GVA growth slightly above the EU
average and strong employment growth despite a reduction in relative productivity.
As neighbours, albeit in different groups for the purposes of this study, they share
some common features. In these regions, a rapid expansion of employment explains
overall output growth, but the expansion has been in sectors that are performing
worse than the EU average, and the evidence in both cases suggests that growth
being driven by tourism. Aquitaine also has modest employment growth but a
slightly better performance on productivity.
Restructuring, when higher-than-average productivity growth is associated with
declining employment, leading nevertheless to good GVA performance due to the
increases of productivity. Sachsen-Anhalt was the only region of the 15 in the
restructuring segment, illustrating its dramatic increase in productivity alongside
employment loss, suggesting new higher value activities as well as a reduction in
low value sectors. Although classed as an Objective 1 region, the specific
circumstances of the transition in eastern Germany probably outweigh the direct
influence of Cohesion policy.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 15 LSE
This leaves the other regions underperforming the EU in categories termed ‘dropping out’,
‘relative decline’2 and ‘industrial conservatism’.
Dropping-out is when productivity growth is achieved alongside lower than average
employment growth usually by the closure of inefficient production units, where
the cutting of low productivity activities results in higher-than-average GVA growth.
Itä-Suomi and Norte have recorded a relative reduction in employment as old
declining sectors were closed down leaving a relative growth in productivity. Again
these findings transcend the specific group to which they are allocated for the
present study.
Industrial conservatism is when poor productivity growth is accompanied (and
sometimes explained) by better-than-average employment growth, a pattern which
is more likely to take place in the presence of public assistance and industrial
rescues. Six regions fall into this segment - North-East England, Nordrhein-
Westfalen, and Basilicata (all close to the borderline with the ‘relative decline’
segment), Nord-Pas de Calais, Burgenland and Dytiki Ellada - meaning that
although they have increased employment it has been accompanied by lower than
average productivity growth, suggesting that growth has been in low productivity
sectors, perhaps supported by interventions. The fact that there are
respresentatives of all three groups of regions in this category signals that how a
region is designated for Cohesion policy purposes may be of limited value as a
predictor of its performance.
Relative decline is defined as a vicious cycle in which both productivity and
employment perform poorer than the average and even the rationalisation of
employment does not restore competitiveness. Only one region performed poorly
on both productivity and employment (Campania), and appears to be locked into
this vicious cycle of relative decline, although an argument might be made about
special circumstances associated with implementation of Cohesion policy, rather
than this being a reflection of Objective 1/Convergence status.
This analysis is however limited to the period up to 2008 and the onset of the economic
crisis. Since then, some of these regions have seen dramatic reductions in GVA and
employment giving a different set of results that illustrates the short term effects of the
crisis rather than the evolution of regional performance through the study period. The
analysis shown here portrays how the regions performed over a period of relatively strong
growth.
2.4 Evolution of development needs
It is important to note that the performance of the regions relative to national and EU
averages has not been consistent across the whole period in the above analysis; analysis for
individual programme periods shows that regions move between the segments shown in
2 In this context it is preferable to revise the definition used in Affuso et al. (1991), who called this segment ‘de-industrialisation’.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 16 LSE
Figure 3 as different regions and countries vary in their experience of economic cycles. The
analysis of the whole period removes the main effects of such annual variability in
performance. The regions have also experienced considerable change in terms of their
initial development needs. A summary overview of the main needs of each region at the
beginning of the study period, and their evolution in relation to the eight thematic axes
outlined earlier, is presented in Table 2. The table indicates how different areas of need
are perceived to have changed over the period from when they first qualified for Cohesion
policy funding since 1989.3
The areas in which most improvement has been made are in the provision of basic
infrastructure and essential public services as well as internal and external connectivity.
This applies to all the regions where development needs were greatest – Andalucía,
Campania, Dytiki Ellada, Galicia, Norte and Sachsen-Anhalt, and is what would be
expected for Objective 1/Convergence regions. It also applies to infrastructure/services in
Burgenland, Basilicata, Nord-Pas de Calais, Ireland, and to external connectivity in
Algarve, Burgenland, North-East England and Nord-Pas de Calais.
For other development needs, the picture is more mixed. Ireland is judged to have made
the most progress in meeting a broad set of development needs, and a wide range of needs
has been addressed at least some extent in Andalucía, Burgenland, Dytiki Ellada, Galicia,
North-East England and Nord-Pas de Calais. Dealing with enterprise-related development
needs seems to have been most difficult across all regions, particularly improving
weaknesses in entrepreneurial culture and encouraging the growth of SMEs. The same
applies to research, development and innovation (RDI) where little progress appears to have
been made in all 15 regions promoting more private R&D investment. Lastly, the table
suggests that some development needs have intensified in certain regions, especially in
Sachsen-Anhalt (notwithstanding the progress made with restructuring noted above) with
respect to long-term unemployment, R&D investment and some aspects of social exclusion
(see Table 5 of the case study report). The severity of needs also appears to have worsened
in the areas of low productivity in Dytiki Ellada, social exclusion in Basilicata and
environmental problems in the Algarve. These patterns reflect important and persistent
differences among the regions in terms of structural characteristics and corresponding
needs.
2.5 Conclusions
In the late 1980s, all of the 15 regions had a complex set of problems and development
needs at the end of the 1980s. Although there were common problems of low GDP, and high
unemployment for some regions, the specific nature of development needs varied greatly.
Convergence regions typically experienced under-development across all thematic axes,
whilst problems tended to be more focused in regions facing industrial decline. Most regions
3 The table is based on qualitative assessments undertaken in the case study research. In representing the evolution of needs, the table does not make inferences in relation to the causal factors that might have driven the described change and, in particular, on whether the change is to be attributed to the intervention of Cohesion policy or other policy interventions. Also, the problems and weaknesses listed are often interrelated.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 17 LSE
faced internal disparities, presenting particular challenges for the prioritisation of actions.
Notwithstanding similarities in initial needs, the regions experienced different journeys
over the study period reflecting a combination of national development trends and regional
policy choices.
Although the evidence presented above makes clear that the distinctions between the three
classes of regions have shortcomings as a means of classifying needs, the discussion suggests
that they nevertheless provide a credible basis for analysis. As a classification, it goes some
way towards combining initial conditions and regional characteristics, and evolution of
needs as a result of performance in the earlier programme periods. In the terms discussed
above in Section 2.1, major underdevelopment and deficits in all indicators, from basic
infrastructure and services, to human resource skills - often compounded by peripherality
(national or European) or significant internal disparities - characterised all the regions in
the Convergence and Phasing-in/out groups, but with some obvious differences at the
outset in the intensity of these problems. In these two groups, Sachsen-Anhalt was
somewhat different because of the legacy of its centrally planned industrial economy, and
thus has some common ground with the RCE group, while it can be argued that Burgenland
and Itä-Suomi have some features in common with Aquitaine. Notwithstanding these
caveats, the subsequent analysis retains the three groups based on Cohesion policy
designation for analytical purposes.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 18 LSE
Table 2: Evolution of regional needs 1989-present (from 1991/1995 for later accession countries)
Infrastructure Distribution of econ. activity /spatial disp.
Labour market & human capital Enterprise R&D&I Structural adjustment
Social inclusion
Envirosust.
Basi
c infr
ast
ructu
re
ess
enti
al se
rvic
es
Peri
phera
lity
/
exte
rnal access
ibilit
y
Inte
rnal connecti
vit
y
Inte
rnal dis
pari
ties
Hig
h u
nem
plo
ym
ent
and/o
r hid
den
econom
y
Long-t
erm
unem
plo
ym
ent
Weak e
ducati
on
levels
Lack o
f sp
ecia
list
skills
Weak indust
rial base
Dom
inance o
f m
icro
and s
mall f
irm
s
Weak
entr
epre
neurs
hip
cult
ure
Low
pro
ducti
vit
y
Weak p
rivate
secto
r
R&
D
Tra
nsi
tion o
r
modern
is.
of
pri
mary
secto
r
De-c
om
m./
recovery
of
old
indust
ries
Socia
l excl.
/povert
y
Out/
imm
igra
tion/
agein
g /
com
muti
ng
Envir
onm
enta
l
pro
ble
ms
S-Anhalt *
Dytiki Ellada
Campania
Norte
Andalucía *
Galicia * *
Burgenland *1
Itä-Suomi
NP de Calais
Ireland
Basilicata
Algarve
Aquitaine
NR Westfalen 2
N.E. England
Key: Major improvement ( indicates needs largely met) Limited improvement Situation has worsened
Notes: (1) Refers only to water supply and waste water infrastructure. (2) Ruhrgebiet only
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 19 LSE
3. STRATEGIES AND RELEVANCE
3.1 Introduction
In order to receive ERDF support, each of the regions in the study was required to develop
multiannual programmes to identify interventions that addressed the perceived needs of
the region. The nature of these programmes varied over time and, to varying degrees,
there were multiple programmes for any one period, sometimes with a strategic framework
document such as a Community Support Framework and, more recently, a National
Strategic Reference Framework. This chapter examines the strategies which shaped these
programmes and their evolution over the programme periods. It also examines the priorities
and objectives of the programmes and assesses the extent to which they were specific,
measureable, achievable, relevant and timely (‘SMART’). The chapter then discusses the
relevance of the strategies and reviews the complementarities and synergies identified in
the case study research.
3.2 Strategies in Cohesion policy programmes
A strategy can mean many different things, sometimes several different things
simultaneously. At a simple level, it is a narrative associated with an individual plan,
setting out objectives and how they will be achieved. This may be quite mechanistic as a
formal planning statement where the steps towards a desired outcome are set out as a
blueprint for specific policy actions. Alternatively, the strategy may be a loose framework
indicating directions within which a range of participants can develop their own strategies
and where the final strategy emerges from a process of experimentation and reflection.
Regions typically pursue a spectrum of such strategies, often interacting in ways that can
make it difficult to establish what the most important objectives are and the order in which
they are to be achieved.
In defining strategies there are a number of other issues to consider. At one level, a
strategy might concern the mix of measures and interventions and how these relate to the
objectives to be achieved: this is what is usually considered as the programme strategy.
However, regions typically obtain support from multiple programmes, so that another level
of strategy relates to how the region integrated these various programmes, and what their
relationship was with any wider regional development strategy. In the latter interpretation,
an overarching strategy may identify what is to be done across a variety of programmes,
and may specify the contributions to be made by individual programmes. It may, though, be
less prescriptive and could be limited, for example, to how much funding is allocated to
different areas of public expenditure.
Where there are multiple strategy documents, plans or programmes at different levels of
governance, these may be in different forms. For example, a programme focused on
infrastructure might have a planning style of strategy in which the actions are specified
precisely at the outset in terms of the roads or railways to be constructed against a
particular timetable, whilst a programme for business support may have very much looser
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 20 LSE
aims and objectives. In the latter it may be that the actual strategy itself evolves over the
course of the programme and is, therefore, subject to considerable flexibility.
A related issue is the potential for both explicit and implicit strategies. Each programme
agreed under the Structural Funds programmes will have had a written strategy which
stated explicitly what was to be done. However, the organisations implementing
programmes may, individually or collectively, have had their own goals for economic
development which may have differed from these explicit strategies, and may not be
formally recorded. Such implicit strategies may influence the application of the funds in
ways that lead to divergence from the explicit strategies. This is more likely where regions
have underlying aims and objectives which differ from the guidance provided for the
Structural Funds; for instance, where the Commission has proposed minimum levels of
expenditure around particular objectives.
Further, implicit strategies different to those spelt out in programme documents may
emerge during implementation, as a result of a process of adapting programmes to meet
practical constraints and unplanned difficulties. A seven-year timeframe is relatively long in
public policy terms; reflecting this, Structural Funds regulations acknowledge the possibility
of shifting resources between areas of spend, modifying the relative weight of instruments
implemented, and introducing new instruments or refining criteria for selecting projects
(with latitudes and modalities which can be changed from one programme period to
another). These changes to the content of programmes, which may be introduced without
altering the description of programme goals or priorities, mean that the strategies actually
pursued may be different to those formally stated, but without explicit recognition of this.
It follows from this discussion that regional strategies are likely to be complex and often
contested, with different regional bodies prioritising different objectives according to their
competences and responsibilities, and also with potential differences between national and
regional bodies, as well as between the rationales behind national and regional
programmes. A final overarching question is whether the region has an underlying,
development strategy, likely to be implicit, which drives the strategies of the individual
programmes, or whether the Cohesion policy strategies in the region drive regional
strategies. In the latter case, especially if wider EU imperatives such as the Lisbon/Europe
2020 strategies map out key policy orientations for which the ERDF is seen as an
instrument, national and regional governments may need to develop regional strategies
where they did not previously exist. In some cases, these top-down pressures require
institutional adaptation because the regional scale of policy was not previously recognised.
3.3 The Cohesion policy strategies of the 15 regions
As observed by Casavola (2009), Cohesion policy is an active policy in which funding is
disbursed in the form of conditional grants, with the European Commission playing ‘the role
of the relevant agency’. For this reason, the strategies of Cohesion policy (the content of
which is set in detail through EU-level regulations) are supposed to be fully-fledged,
describing in detail: the objectives; intended results (the desired change); the interventions
or sets of actions to be undertaken in order to realise such change; and even the targets to
be achieved against initial baselines. The reality, however, is that even in 2007-2013:
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 21 LSE
‘…programme documents – despite the common outline depicted in the regulations –
show a high variance with respect to the degree of unambiguousness or completeness
of the proposed agenda’ (Casavola, 2009, p.7).
This finding applies to the 15 regions evaluated in this study. Variation is linked to a
number of factors, which include the varying institutional traditions and cultures in the
regions investigated, the existence (or dominance) of wider domestic strategies, and the
levels of institutional capacity available.
Some of the 15 regions had a clear vision of how they wanted to use the resources from the
Structural Funds in at least some periods, most obviously those in which a single regional
Operational Programme was closely linked with a collective regional strategy. Others had
multiple ERDF programmes at national and regional level being implemented in the region,
alongside other domestic spending programmes, and hence an overall regional strategy,
even for the Structural Funds, could only ever take the form of implicit assumptions about
suitable responses to regional need and future development opportunities. There were
national level overarching strategies for the coordination of programmes, notably the CSFs
in earlier periods (multi-regional strategic frameworks) and, more recently, the NSRFs
(national strategic reference frameworks covering all regions within the same country,
irrespective of Cohesion policy status); however, these did not always comprise clear and
visible strategies for individual regions. Consequently, it is unsurprising that within the 15
regions were polarised between those with a single, dominant and holistic strategy for the
ERDF programme and regions with multiple and complex overlapping programmes in which
holistic strategies were lacking or were much less evident.
Furthermore, strategies evolved over the period since 1989-2012 with changes in policy and
eligibility, learning effects, and changes in domestic governance structures. Sometimes
these changes led to a clarification of strategies and greater coherence, although not in all
cases, as some developments were regressive. Looking at the three main sets of regions
identified in the previous chapter, there are some commonalities that can be identified
within the groups.
The regions initially characterised by major underdevelopment and deficits on all indicators
– notably the Objective 1/Convergence regions as well as Ireland, Basilicata, Algarve (all of
which were classified as Objective 1 at the beginning of the study period) - were in
countries in which, at the outset, the structure of support involved national ERDF
programmes with varying degrees of regionally specific programmes. Ireland was the
outlier in this group, as prior to 2000 there were only national programmes integrated into
a National Development Plan, with no separate regional ERDF programmes. Leaving aside
the Irish case, the regions typically struggled to adopt coherent strategies across the many
programmes at national and regional levels, with in some cases relatively weak capacity at
the regional scale to develop complex strategies.
National Operational Programmes were usually driven by the investment strategies of
government departments, for example in the development of national transport and
communications networks, and they were only weakly connected at either national or
regional level. These national programmes then often failed to integrate with what were
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 22 LSE
sometimes weak regional Operational Programmes. However, Basilicata is an example of a
region which, at least during the first two programme periods covered, had a comparatively
clear vision for how it wanted to develop, based on a comprehensive Regional Development
Plan that had initially been prepared during the 1980s. As regions also mainly lacked
separate domestic regional strategies, the consequence was a series of parallel programmes
with their own internal logic but poorly connected to each other.
In Portugal and Greece, for instance, there was no tradition of regional-level government,
and regional strategies were essentially driven by national policy objectives. In the case of
the Algarve, a national acceptance of its role as the main tourism region was incorporated
into programme strategies, whilst in Norte an initial focus on traditional industrial sectors
later led to internal divisions, with some areas wishing to focus on high tech and services.
Norte later developed an orientation towards transport and logistics.
In Italy, Campania, despite having autonomous administrative experience as a self-
governing authority since the early 1970s, experienced great difficulties in establishing
strategic orientation in the first two programme periods. Italian regions at this time
received most of their support through many national programmes (MOPs) as ‘baskets’ for
the allocation of expenditure, without an overarching underlying theory or inter-relations
with the regional OPs. The situation only improved in the late 1990s when, in parallel with
wider national-level developments which saw more weight being placed on economic
theories as a basis for policy design, these regions gradually developed their own abilities
to draft regional development strategies.4
Galicia too had disconnected national Operational Programmes and weak regional
coordination.
The weakness of distinct regional voices in strategies in most of these regions meant that
there national and regional programmes diverged considerably, although infrastructure
tended to dominate in both cases, in line with a common assumption at the time that
growth could be induced by enhancing the infrastructural endowment of regions. Over
time, strategies became less fragmented and more regionally specific. This was coupled
with a reorientation away from basic public services infrastructure, but the latter was
partly pushed by the Commission rather than a rethinking at the regional scale. In some
regions, there was also a sense, never formally stated, that they had more or less
exhausted their initial list of infrastructure projects.
Ireland and Andalucía were outliers in this group. Ireland, as a small country, was initially
treated as a single region by the ERDF, with a well-structured national strategy, and the
country experienced rapid development culminating in its exit from Convergence region
4 This was a development favoured by a number of factors both exogenous (the constitutional
reforms of 1999 and 2001 that assigned to the regions more powers and competences) and endogenous to the policy (the higher share of resources to be channelled through the regional OPs – c. 70 percent in 2000-2006, compared to c. 30 percent in 1994-1999 – and the support provided by the national coordinating body to the regional authorities for programme design). Indeed, the 2000-2006 CSF, through the ROPs, encouraged the creation of regional-level sectoral domestic strategies and plans (e.g. in the field of social policies).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 23 LSE
status. Because Ireland is relatively small, a national-level strategy was appropriate, and
the National Development Plan sought to promote development across the whole country
through local delivery mechanisms. The NDP also provided a more balanced and
coordinated strategy than was the case in other regions, and even when ERDF support was
reduced in later programmes, it simply became a smaller contribution to a continuing
national strategy. Andalucía had a regional development plan which was jointly written by
national and regional governments. One of its key aims was to overcome backwardness and
facilitate growth, with an implicit goal of unifying the eastern and western parts of the
region. Infrastructure was central to this strategy, especially road and rail networks. The
ensuing overall strategy therefore emphasised infrastructure and public investment, rather
than industrial development.
Sachsen-Anhalt differed somewhat from other Objective 1/Convergence regions in that it
was undergoing transition to a market economy as part of a unified Germany, as well as
having Objective 1 status for most of the period (in the 2007-13 period, part of the Land is
Phasing-out). Its strategic emphasis was on industrial renewal and development. For most
of the period, Sachsen-Anhalt received ERDF principally from a regional Operational
Programme rather than the mix of national and regional programmes found in other
Objective 1/Convergence regions, although there was a national transport OP after 2000.
Thus, with a strong regional government and a strategy dominated by a single ROP, the
ERDF strategy was coherent and focused, and tied tightly into the wider regional
development strategy, with the programmes being used to support existing domestic
regional objectives and programmes – such as subsidies for the modernisation of industry.
The Objective 2/RCE regions, and also the Phasing-in/out or Convergence regions facing
transition or restructuring of traditional industries (Nord-Pas-de-Calais), were usually
supported mainly or exclusively through region-specific programmes. This immediately
provided more opportunity for stronger strategic coherence. This was reinforced by the
existence (at least for part of the period in some cases) of strong regional strategic
leadership. Nonetheless, in all three declining traditional industrial regions – Nord-Pas-de-
Calais, North East England and Nordrhein-Westfalen - there were initial strategy
integration difficulties caused by the existence of sub-regional programmes, particularly
with regard to different levels of eligibility for support. Nord-Pas-de-Calais included both
Objective 1 and Objective 2 areas, North East England was initially two Objective 2
programmes but then also had Objective 5b areas, whilst Nordrhein-Westfalen had only
small areas eligible for ERDF. In the 1990s, North-East England lacked a separate regional
strategy, and the need to develop a strategy for the ERDF drove thinking on regional needs
and hence strategy, even influencing national policies for the region. Subsequently, the
development of a formal Regional Economic Strategy reversed the roles insofar as it
provided a context that shaped later ERDF programmes from 2000 onwards.
Typically these strategies, at least for the ERDF programmes, were more tightly focused on
the conversion the regional industrial structure rather than wider development needs and
infrastructures. Some infrastructure was still supported, especially in the early period, but
this was typically associated with diversification, such as derelict land reclamation, new
industrial parks and related transport connections.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 24 LSE
Finally, the two Phasing-in/out regions and the one Objective 2/RCE region affected mainly
by issues of rurality or peripherality (Aquitaine, Itä-Suomi and Burgenland) had more
diverse strategic approaches.
Burgenland was an Objective 1 region in 1995 but with a single regional programme (i.e. no
overarching CSF or national programme). Regarded as a one-off chance for a ‘leap forward’
in economic development, the ERDF programme was developed at a time when the region
shifted from being on the eastern border of western Europe to a central location in a
larger, integrating Europe. Led by a programme group consisting of national and regional
representatives – and ring-fenced from the political influence which characterised other
interventions - there was an initial emphasis on removing supply-side bottlenecks, later on
followed by a shift towards stimulating demand.
Aquitaine had a more complex situation with two Objective 5b areas and a small Objective
2 area initially in 1989, although with increasing coverage of the territory in subsequent
programmes. Here, the fragmented map of territorial eligibility resulted in differentiated
approaches – targeting investment in companies in the Objective 2 area and agricultural
and rural development in the Objective 5b areas, although with shifts over time towards
the Lisbon agenda. The difficulties of finding single solutions led to generic programmes
within which local actors were able to use the ERDF to support their own local strategies.
Under a single RCE programme in the 2007-13 period, the focus has shifted to
competitiveness and more targeted objectives, but with a greater emphasis on the
opportunities in the more urbanised areas.
Itä-Suomi has also been through a number of changes in eligibility from 1995 onwards as it
evolved from a mix of Objective 6 and 5b, to Objective 1, and then Phasing-in 2007-13.
These changes coincided with the creation of new regional councils and organisational
change in the state organisations involved in regional development. A characteristic of the
region over time has heterogeneous interests and thus objectives, with programmes being
designed to be flexibly interpreted by different stakeholders. A shift can nevertheless be
discerned, from broad renewal of the industrial structure, to an emphasis on growth
sectors, then to an innovation driven strategy.
3.4 Explicit v. implicit strategies and theoretical underpinnings
From the above, it is clear that there were sometimes differences between the explicit
strategies as stated in programme documents and what regions were really trying to
achieve, or what might be called implicit strategies. However the explicit and implicit
strategies tended to become more aligned in later programme periods. In cases such as
Ireland, strategies reflected objective analyses and ex ante evaluations from the start,
which helped to ensure that the strategies were clearly formulated and implemented in line
with objectives. They commanded a reasonable degree of political consensus and within
the different branches of the state administration (with some exceptions in relation to
specific themes).
For most of the 15 regions, however, the strategies set out in programme documents during
the 1990s tended to be general, mono-thematic or generic, lacking evaluation evidence and
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 25 LSE
sound needs analyses. This tendency, which was by no means a peculiarity of the case study
regions (see, for example, the review of Objective 2 strategies in Bachtler and Taylor,
1999), had two main implications. First, the explicit strategies could hide a reality of
diverse interests and assumptions on the part of stakeholders. In Algarve, for example, the
programmes were underpinned by an implicit assumption that tourism would increase
through investments in transport and environmental infrastructure, although this was not
stated clearly in the programmes. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais, in the first two periods, the
explicit focus on reconversion/transition hid a continued preference for supporting
traditional sectors, which were an important source of employment and had a strong
symbolic value for workers and local authorities (particularly in 1989-1993). Local
authorities in many regions were also a favoured beneficiary of ERDF spending because of
domestic financial constraints.
Second, the limited sophistication of early strategies also meant that the explicit strategies
could be open to interpretation, leaving extensive scope for flexibility during
implementation, sometimes leading to discrepancies between the explicit strategy and
what was actually pursued. As an example, in Aquitaine, the divergence between explicit
and implicit strategies up to 2006 was because regional-level managing authorities were
unable to dictate what local authorities did. Thus, support to urban areas was implemented
mainly through the redevelopment of public spaces rather than the other forms of support
foreseen by the programme, such as social and cultural innovation. Similar issues were
reported in Basilicata and Norte, where the loose specification of objectives allowed local
priorities to be pursued. In North East England, the early programmes were essentially
‘containers’ that the partnerships implemented with selection criteria which could be quite
different from the overall thrust of the programmes. In 1989-1993, this meant a significant
discrepancy between the stated strategy for enterprise support and sectoral development
and the actual allocation of resources to local authorities for property-based projects.
The generality of explicit strategies was not necessarily due to inexperience or lack of
capacity: in Itä-Suomi it was a strategy in itself. The general objectives, in successive
programmes, were attributable to the difficulty of having to accommodate four, quite
different NUTS 3 sub-regional strategies which inhibited specific goals and targets for the
region as a whole.
Over time, explicit strategies were adjusted in response to different assessments of needs
and development paradigms, although this did not always result in a real change in actual
strategies. For example, in Burgenland, the changes to programme strategies were
formulated in much stronger terms in the programme documents than actually occurred in
practice. Although the interventions set out in the programme documents were ambitious
and wide-ranging, most financial resources continued to be allocated to grants to
companies and other forms of business aid. During the 2007-2013 period, the focus has
more-or-less exclusively been on aid to individual companies – contrary to what was
declared in the explicit strategy. Similarly, while R&D and technology transfer capabilities
were strategic objectives in all three programme periods, actual implementation focused
more on attracting FDI (including R&D and investments in technology parks).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 26 LSE
Lastly, few strategies were clearly underpinned by specific theories of economic
development, with the exception of the Italian programmes (Basilicata, Campania) in the
2000-2006 period (endogenous development), North East England in the 2000s (regional
innovation system) and the domestic regional policy focus of Nordrhein-Westfalen and
Sachsen-Anhalt (the local development concepts devised at sub-Land level as part of the
so-called Regionalised Structural Policy). Especially in the programmes during the 1990s,
strategies were generally drafted as compilations of interventions which would be used to
draw down funding. Attempts to reconstruct ex post the underlying theories, as part of the
case study research, indicated multifaceted, muddled and contradictory development
models. In fairness, however, the strategies were often drawn up according to the
prevailing domestic or EU economic thinking of the time, such as the view in the late 1980s
and early 1990s that (for Objective 1 regions) infrastructure development was a main
source of economic growth, and similarly in later periods, cluster policies began to be
introduced in line with the emerging academic evidence.
3.5 Evolution of objectives and priorities
The early ERDF programmes of the 15 case study regions had relatively simple objectives,
often with limited assessment of needs. In the first programme period (1989-93),5 the main
orientations fell into the following categories:
a) programmes from the Objective 1/Convergence group focused primarily
a. on infrastructure (Algarve, Andalucía, Dytiki Ellada, Norte),
complemented by ESF investments in human resources; or
b. on diversified, wide-ranging objectives, combining varying levels of support
for infrastructure endowment and basic services, with structural
adjustment/entrepreneurial support measures aimed at developing
industry, entrepreneurship, conversion, skills, competitiveness and wider
quality of life (Ireland, Campania, Basilicata, Galicia);
b) programmes from Phasing-in/out or Objective 2/Competitiveness regions focused
mainly on the challenges of structural adjustment and dealing with their industrial
legacies (including cleaning-up brownfield sites), often together with external
accessibility, the pursuit of intra-regional territorial balance and/or support of
marginalised groups (Nordrhein-Westfalen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Nord-Pas-de-Calais,
North East England);
c) programmes geared towards rural development and the economic diversification of
rural or sparsely populated areas (Aquitaine, Itä-Suomi from 1995); and
d) a predominant focus on enterprise development and the modernisation of the
industrial base (Burgenland, also only from 1995).
5 For Burgenland and Itä-Suomi, the first programme period was 1995-1999 following the accession of Austria and Finland to the EU in 1995.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 27 LSE
For the most part, the regional objectives were remarkably stable over time, tending to
evolve incrementally rather than being radically overhauled at the beginning of each
programme period (a trend which was also true in other EU regions - see Bachtler et al.,
2000 and Taylor et al., 2004). This applied in particular to the 1990s, although Basilicata
was an example of a region where four strategic axes persisted over the entire period from
1989 to 2012, despite shifts of emphasis. More substantial changes were undertaken at the
start of the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 periods, driven mainly by compliance with EU
objectives and the influence of the Lisbon strategy (the Community Strategic Guidelines in
2007-2013). Changes in the eligibility status of regions (e.g. Ireland in 2000, Basilicata in
2007) or in territorial eligibility (e.g. in Nordrhein-Westfalen, North East England, Nord-
Pas-de-Calais, Aquitaine) also prompted strategic re-assessments. This involved a certain
homogenisation of approach, at least in terms of stated strategic objectives, and a general
shift towards funding more private sector beneficiaries and projects after 2000.
Nordrhein-Westfalen was the only region which undertook a strategic review during the
1990s; in 1997 the main strategic orientation of the Objective 2 programme on structural
adjustment was retained, but with a shift in focus towards employment creation and major
projects. Programming for 2000-2006 saw substantial strategic reassessments in Ireland,
Itä-Suomi, North-East England, Campania and Basilicata – generally driven by domestic
policy developments. The North East England strategic review was influenced by the
realisation that attracting FDI could not solve the region's development problems unless
complemented by a change in the endogenous entrepreneurial culture. In Sachsen-Anhalt,
the programme’s scope was extended in 2000, following changes to the regulatory
framework of domestic regional policy (GRW)6, while in Itä-Suomi, a change in national
domestic policy thinking led to a shift from support to firms and agriculture to promotion of
the ‘knowledge ‘economy.
The new orientation of the EU Community Strategic Guidelines in 2007 emphasised
innovation, and often tallied with domestic paradigm shifts within the regions. In
Nordrhein-Westfalen, for instance, the 2007-2013 programme has entailed a fundamental
shift in objectives, whereby support for structural adjustment and employment has been
superseded by competitiveness and adaptability, and the territorial focus on the Ruhrgebiet
has been discontinued. As explained above, the shift in objectives was part of a longer term
process of reorientation towards innovation, due partly to the realisation during the 2000-
2006 period that the previous approach and its implementation had become dated and
inefficient, resulting in the launch of a cluster policy. Similarly, in Nord-Pas-de-Calais,
there was a clear shift towards Lisbon priorities for the 2007-2013 programme, which
represented a fundamental change in direction. Although ostensibly driven by EU
requirements, it was also embedded in the framework of domestic policies, notably the
competitiveness poles and the new ‘Regional innovation strategy’, elaborated with the
support of the European Commission and aligned with the Contrat de Projet Etat-Région
and the Regional Economic Development Scheme (SRDE, 2005).
6 Gemeinschaftsaufgabe Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur (GRW), Joint task for the
improvement of the regional economic structure.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 28 LSE
Most recently, the economic crisis has led to extensive re-programming in a few regions7
(Dytiki Ellada, Campania, Norte), linked sometimes (in Campania and Basilicata) with a
parallel change in domestic regional and national governments and thus policy priorities. In
some respects, it is remarkable how few regions did overhaul their strategies in response to
such major external shocks, a point noted also later in this report (see Chapter 8 ) which
highlights the lack of flexibility of some programmes.
Within this strategic context, the key thematic trends over time were as follows (more
detailed information on the evolution of individual regional strategies is provided in Table
3, Table 4 and Table 5).
Greater emphasis was placed on R&D and innovation mainly from 2000 onwards.
Earlier attention to these themes was evident in several regions (e.g. Aquitaine,
Campania, Ireland, North East England, Nordrhein-Westfalen), but the
interventions often underperformed initially, due to a lack of readiness and
understanding of the main co-financing bodies or beneficiaries.
Support for entrepreneurship and more sophisticated SME interventions – e.g. with
support not just for fixed assets but also for marketing, internationalisation,
financial engineering, industrial areas, cluster support etc. - also increased over
time. Burgenland was distinctive in making the modernisation of the industrial base
of the Land the central theme of all its programmes from 1995 to the present.
The Urban Community Initiative paved the way for the integration of urban
development in the mainstream programmes, reflected in support for regeneration
and specifically community development, which featured more strongly in the
2000-2006 and 2007-2013 programmes.
Continuity of support throughout the study period was evident in four areas: (a)
tourism, in virtually all regions, increasingly linked to wider attractiveness/cultural-
related interventions; (b) environmental infrastructure and/or nature protection in
some regions (e.g. Basilicata, Campania, Galicia); (c) cross-border linkages and
cooperation with neighbouring regions, as part of the mainstream programmes,
INTERREG programmes or both (e.g. Galicia, Aquitaine, Norte, Itä-Suomi); and (d)
improvement of quality of life, in a few programmes, such as Campania, Dytiki
Ellada and Galicia.
A more detailed overview of the evolution of objectives across the programme periods is
provided in Table 3 (‘Objective 1/Convergence’ Regions), Table 4 (‘Phasing-in/out’
Regions) and Table 5 (‘Objective 2/RCE’) Regions.
3.6 SMART objectives
Overall, the case study research found a general perception among programme authorities,
other stakeholders and external experts that programmes had improved over time and had
7 As have other European regions more generally (see European Commission 2013a; 2013b).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 29 LSE
become more ‘SMART’. However, they varied in their success in this respect, and in some
cases there were reversals.
Taking the SMART attributes in turn, objectives should be specific, clear and unambiguous.
However there was a tendency in many of the programmes to have general statements
about improving development in the region and unrealistic ambitions of closing the gap
with national or EU averages, without specific objectives which connected with the needs
of the region. Many programmes were generic, and could have been adopted in other
regions. Whilst strategies did become more regionally specific over time, there was also
some convergence due to the pressure from the Commission to address EU-wide Lisbon
objectives.8
Considerable progress was made in making objectives measurable, although more needs to
be done to meet expectations for the 2014-20 period.9 In the programme periods of the
1990s, programmes lacked quantified targets and monitoring systems. Later programmes
have often had some form of impact measure, but the metrics used were often been crude
and poor measures of the interventions. This led to projects seeking to optimise the
measurements rather than delivering the best results for the region. In addition, some
objectives were not easily amenable to quantified targets, and were best described in
qualitative terms, although this presented problems for measurement and estimating
whether the project was as successful as it should have been, given the resources invested.
Some of the programme-level objectives were over-ambitious, and hence not attainable
(discussed in more detail in Chapter 5). Setting a target for an activity needed a detailed
understanding of how that target will be achieved. This could be relatively simple for a
construction activity where relative costs were known, but much more difficult in
interventions where benchmarked costs were unknown, or where activities were highly
heterogeneous and the mix was not known in advance. Even for construction, though, there
were often problems of poor targets being set, one explanation being that assumptions
about costs were shown to be unreasonable. Missed targets in many regions could be
attributed to poor implementation, but also to unrealistic targets.
The relevance of programmes was a central issue in the study, examined in more detail
below. The crucial question was whether programmes were designed to meet the real
needs of the region. As noted above, many of the regions saw some fragmentation of
8 A source of weakness in the development of specific objectives, which is also relevant for the 2007-13 generation of programmes, was the unpreparedness of regional administrations at the time. In this regard, the 15 regions were not an exception. A recent study by DG Regio on 23 pilot Managing Authorities in 15 Member States found that programme objectives tended to be generic, and that the logic of intervention in programmes was often weak, with priorities often resulting from the aggregation of ‘more or less related’ sub-priorities. The study underlines that some programmes ‘were designed in a deliberately vague fashion so that resources could be spread thematically and geographically’ (European Commission, Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy, 2013, p.9).
9 Inaccurate target setting is also not a problem exclusive to the 15 regions covered by this study. The European Commission in its working document on the 2013 Strategic Report found that even in current programmes, ‘Target setting remains perhaps the most widespread and substantial problem. In a number of cases, targets were not been set. Where targets were set, many were often substantially over- or underachieved’ (European Commission, 2013b, p.21).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 30 LSE
interests as different stakeholders had different conceptions of the needs of the region.
Thus, if the needs were contested then there would inevitably be disagreements about
what was relevant.
Finally, objectives should be timely: there should be a realistic timescale over which
objectives should be achieved with the resources available. This was automatically
introduced in some respects by the nature of programmes which set a specific timescale for
interventions, although they usually did not specify the timescale over which results were
expected – especially where the scale of ambition was much greater than can be achieved
within the programme period (see Chapter 8). This then introduced problems of evaluation,
especially where results arose only after the programme ended. In most regions, this was
due to inadequate consideration of the timeframe over which interventions could be
assessed. Major infrastructure projects exemplified the difficulty because many required
support from successive programmes.
3.7 Relevance
A key question for the study is the appropriateness of programmes in meeting regional
needs, specifically whether the design of programmes (strategic goals, objectives,
priorities, expenditure allocation) can be considered as relevant to the needs of the region.
It is important, moreover, to stress that relevance can only sensibly understood in terms of
what was perceived to be needed at the time the programme was formulated. Based on the
case study research, the regions can be categorised into three groups which do not, to any
particular degree, reflect the three different types of eligibility for Cohesion policy support
(see Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).
High relevance – where programme strategies were judged to be relevant across the
study period – applicable to Sachsen-Anhalt, Norte and Galicia, Burgenland, Nord-
Pas-de-Calais and Ireland and Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Moderate to high relevance - where programme strategies were considered to be
relevant for much of the time, with the exception of certain periods or areas of
need, and/or where the programmes captured the right needs with their
overarching objectives but without necessarily being able to appropriately
modulate and prioritise the financial effort or devise appropriate instruments –
applicable to Basilicata, Campania and Andalucía.
Moderate relevance - where programme strategies were regarded as being only
partially relevant – applicable in the cases of Dytiki Ellada (in earlier periods), Itä-
Suomi, Algarve, Aquitaine and North East England.
The tables provide both a summary review of the assessment of relevance for each case
study, as well as the evaluation team’s assessment of relevance in hindsight i.e. whether
the programme objectives would still be considered relevant today, based on the current
appreciation of need and development theories and models, compared to when the
programmes were drafted.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 31 LSE
There is no obvious pattern linking the degree of relevance to the relative development of
regions and thus to their Cohesion policy status, and the strategic scope and financial scale
of programmes. The picture is mixed across the three groups of regions - Objective
1/Convergence, Phasing-in/out and Objective 2/RCE. Thus, whether the regions belong to
one or other of the three categories does not appear to have been a factor in determining
the degree to which programme strategies were relevant.
Whether regional strategies were drafted at regional or national level does not appear to
be a key factor either. However, programme strategies and objectives appear to be more
relevant where strategies were underpinned by solid ex ante evaluation and analyses of
need, something which tended to improve over time (although even during preparation for
the 2000-2006 programmes, the actual impact of ex ante evaluations was limited by the
tendency to undertake them in parallel with the drafting of programmes - see Bachtler et
al., 2009). Only Ireland and Nordrhein-Westfalen consistently undertook evidence-based
programming. However, even in Nordrhein-Westfalen the linkage between ex ante analysis
and strategy was indirect, in the sense that the domestic ‘Regionalised Structural Policy’,
which informed the content of the Land’s ERDF programmes, was itself informed by several
studies and analyses that had been undertaken independently of Cohesion policy.
Perhaps surprisingly, strong thematic concentration is not always positively correlated with
relevance. In some cases, the strategic focus on a single dimension in early programmes
negatively affected the programmes’ ability to address the main perceived needs (e.g. in
Dytiki Ellada). Similarly, in the 2007-13 period, the focus on Lisbon priorities is perceived
to neglect development needs which are still relevant (for instance the specific needs of
rural areas in Aquitaine and of physical regeneration in the Tees Valley in North East
England).
The lack of direct correlation between the needs declared in programme documents and
the explicit strategies may, however, signal that implicit strategies (rather than what is
stated in programme documents) matter more, and could strengthen rather than weaken
the programme’s actual relevance. For example, in Campania, successive programmes
explicitly recognised the need to rebalance spatial population and economic patterns, at
the same time as they were directing most of the resources to the metropolitan area of
Naples. Apparently contradictory, this choice can be considered justified, due to the
concentration of population, economic activity and social and economic problems in this
area and this area’s relative economic potential (and spillover effects).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 32 LSE
Table 3: Evolution of strategies: ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ Regions
Region 1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013
Sachsen-Anhalt
Capital oriented funding approach Continuation of capital-oriented funding approach, explicit focus on SMEs, support for endogenous entrepreneurial potential, support to coal, steel conversion and urban regions (Community Initiatives)
Firms competitiveness especially SMEs; infrastructure in education, science and inter-regional transport (federal programme); internationalisation strategy and strengthening export capability; urban development (Urban C.I.)
Growth and job-creation through innovation, research and education, entrepreneurial capital & infrastructure (in transport sector, federal programme). Addition of urban dimension in programme strategy, continuation of internationalisation & exports strategy.
Dytiki Ellada
Infrastructures, quality of life, stimulation of endogenous growth, local development.
Infrastructures, linking the region’s development with the planned major transport projects, endogenous and local development, quality of life, industrial development and SME support.
Infrastructures, linking development with the planned transport projects, SMEs and environment, quality of life, innovation and Information Society for regional competitiveness, integrated spatial development (rural, urban and specific population groups), tourism & culture, diversification of rural income.
Continued emphasis on infrastructure development, focus on competitiveness and SMEs, and innovation/ Information Society for regional competitiveness. Weakening of the strategic choice to connect the region’s development with large transport projects. Improving quality of life.
Campania Investments in infrastructure and (to a lesser degree) in support to firms, urban regeneration and community development, investments in cultural heritage.
Infrastructure, increased support to firms, research and innovation, urban regeneration, cultural heritage, introduction of legality and security and of ‘softer issues’ such as social cohesion and education.
Alignment with ‘New Programming’ approach and thus emphasis on governance, transportation, urban renewal, local development, research and education, softer issues such as gender and capacity-building.
Alignment with NSRF, and thus emphasis on transport, environmental sustainability, education, R&I, local development, tourism development, urban renewal.
Norte Accessibility and Human Capital infrastructures
Education, health and cultural infrastructures, clustering, transport infrastructure (roads, railways).
Transport and education infrastructure, innovation
Innovation, R&D and competitiveness, supplemented by development support for low density areas.
Andalucía Articulation and ‘unlocking’ the territory, water infrastructure, tourism development, areas and services to businesses, social infrastructure.
Environmental infrastructure, support to the productive and industrial location factors, development of compulsory secondary education.
Completion of transport infrastructure network, e-PA and computerisation of citizen services, regional innovation system, intangibles (organisational capital, innovation, ICT, etc.), nature conservation, tourism development, economic diversification, branding.
R&D&I, entrepreneurship (away from subsidies), reform of the incentives system and reinforcement of financial instruments, increased connectivity and quality of transport infrastructure, nature conservation and biodiversity, differentiation and quality tourism, social infrastructure.
Galicia Internal connections, external accessibility, sanitation and purification, investment and modernisation of productive sectors.
Access from outside of the region, internal communications, environmental deficit, halting industrial downturn, regional development agency.
Improving access from outside and internal communications, environment, infrastructures, productivity and competitiveness of firms, R&D Plan, Regional innovation system.
Access from outside the region and internal communications via high-capacity road networks, R&D Plan, Regional Innovation System, pollution control and protected areas
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 33 LSE
Table 4: Evolution of strategies: ‘Phasing-in/out’ Regions
Region 1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013
Burgenland N.A. Large -project strategy (business parks, technology parks), IT-Infrastructure, grants for industrial investments, FDI tourism, training (ESF)
Completion of business infrastructure, increased emphasis on SMEs and start-ups, Clusters & cooperation, tourism training (ESF)
Grants for industry investments, SME support, increased focus on ‘soft-aid’, R&D/Innovation, centres of excellence, tourism & culture
Itä-Suomi N.A. Recovery from recession, modernising the periphery via business development support
Promoting the knowledge-based economy (knowledge infrastructure )
Creating innovative environments (support to networks of firms and joint laboratories)
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
In line with domestic policies, infrastructure and businesses.
More efforts on former mining area (Objective 1 area); focus on infrastructure but stronger emphasis on HR and social issues; improving ‘image’ and ‘attractiveness’.
Continued focus on large projects and infrastructure but increasing concern on innovation, ICT, sustainable development.
Strong influence of EU regulations on Lisbon strategy. Coordination with domestic competitiveness poles; more qualitative approach of industrial renewal.
Ireland Broadly based CSF with a focus or direct support for enterprise, infrastructure, training
Broadly based CSF with continued investment in infrastructure and enterprise, new local development OP
Focused NSRF (EU-Funded component of much larger NDP) addressing innovation and regional development
Focused NSRF (EU-Funded component of much larger NDP) addressing innovation, environment, ICT and Gateway locations
Basilicata Building infrastructure for growth and tourism development
Infrastructures for growth and social cohesion; SMEs and soft interventions
Endogenous growth, SMEs and environment
Competitiveness and jobs (Lisbon strategy)
Algarve Investments in environment and basic education infrastructures
Environmental investments, education and health infrastructures, accessibility
Accessibility , urban rehabilitation projects, support for low density areas
Innovation, R&D, competitiveness, urban rehabilitation projects and intervention in low density areas
Table 5: Evolution of strategies: ‘Objective 2/RCE’ Regions
Region 1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013
Aquitaine Industrial diversification, new activities, integration of Lacq-Orthez basin with surrounding industrial areas Adour basin (Obj.2); job maintenance and creation (Obj.5b)
Insertion in European trade flows, infra-regional cohesion, conditions for economic development (Obj. 2); agriculture & forestry as drivers for rural areas, economic diversification, environment, attractiveness of rural areas (Obj.5b).
Strengthen the key role of businesses in job creation Enhance local resources from the perspective of a sustainable and balanced territorial development
Innovation and sustainable development as drivers of regional competitiveness, strengthening competitiveness through innovation, exploitation of environmental assets in a sustainable development perspective
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Diversification of industrial structure, environmental quality and sites reclamation, CBC and, from 1992, HR modernisation.
Diversification of the industrial structure, SME infrastructure, reuse of industrial wasteland and environmental quality, human capital and, from 1997, support to enterprise development.
Enterprises and start-up support; innovation and competences, innovation infrastructure, support to targeted groups.
Strengthening entrepreneurship, innovation and knowledge economy, sustainable urban and regional development.
North East England
Aligned to domestic strategy of attracting inward investment, with physical development and local connections.
Increased emphasis on innovation & enterprise, introduction of ‘softer issues’ (community economic development, redevelopment of large strategic sites and transformational tourism projects). Emerging cluster approaches and university involvement.
Alignment with new Regional Economic Strategy and Business Links programme. Stronger focus on SMEs and new financial instruments: softer infrastructure, business support, excellence centres and finance equity instruments.
Embedded in larger Regional Economic Strategy/RES Action Plan and Single Programme match funding: business support, innovation connectors, finance equity instruments.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 34 LSE
Table 6: Assessment of relevance: ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ Regions
Region Relevance Assessment
Sachsen-Anhalt HIGH. Programme objectives, priorities and expenditure allocation on the whole responded to the needs identified in the programme’s background analyses and as perceived at the time. Progressive widening of programme scope was justified. In the current period, however, it may lead to reduced effectiveness given the spread of reduced resources across too many areas of intervention.
1991-1994 programme mono-dimensional (due to pragmatic rather than strategic choice), not all needs were adequately addressed (e.g. urban structure, innovation).
Dytiki Ellada MODERATE. Mono-dimensionality of programmes from early periods (infrastructure) and new institutional set up and wide coverage (many themes and priorities) in current period mean that not all regional needs have adequately been addressed in programme strategies.
2007-2013 programmes’ objectives are too dispersed. The stated intention to focus on strategic projects, rather than continuing the past practice of spreading resources thinly to many small projects, has tended to be overhauled by the current crisis.
Campania MOSTLY HIGH. The strategies formulated in the programmes were generally coherent with the needs identified, with a few exceptions in relation to labour market, enterprise, social cohesion and the spatial distribution of economic activities.
Spatial distribution of population and economic activity mentioned as need, but without building fully-fledged strategies to redress imbalance (with the exception of interventions in agriculture, rural and urban regeneration, cultural heritage and tourism development). In reality, programme interventions tended to focus on the Naples metropolitan area.
Norte HIGH. Serious deficiencies in infrastructure and human resource skills duly taken into account in all four programme periods. From 1994, focus also on enterprise, structural adjustment and innovation was correct given prospective change in international competition. 2000-2006 programmes further seeking better balance between traditional sectors and new activities (structural adjustment) and exploitation of advantages geographical position in the Atlantic Area, whilst supporting innovation to modernise traditional sectors. Current programmes. NSRF paradigm shift towards regional competitiveness & critical mass building cannot be assessed as undergoing change (financial crisis).
Cluster strategy introduced in 1994-1999 was inappropriate due to cultural attitudes amongst the entrepreneurial class (consisting of microenterprises). This was not acknowledged at the time.
Andalucía MOSTLY HIGH. Overall relevant throughout the study period (view shared by regional stakeholders). However, this assessment differs if one compares need and imputed objectives on a theme by theme basis (where for some themes there is a wide discrepancy between theme and needs).
Insufficient efforts to reinforce the industrial base.
Galicia HIGH. Main regional needs in the initial programme periods were: lack of transport infrastructure (accessibility and internal connectivity), telecommunications and electricity networks; conservation and improvement of the environment (drinking water distribution, waste water and solid waste management); diversification and competitive enhancement of agriculture and industry; a need for innovation. These objectives were largely addressed by the programmes (innovation in later periods), exactly designed to indirectly impact on the productivity of the economy and its ability to generate employment opportunities. Strategic shifts from one period to the next were justified.
Insufficient attention was given to the promotion of internationalisation and small businesses.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 35 LSE
Table 7: Assessment of relevance: ‘Phasing-in/out’ Regions
Region Relevance Assessment
Burgenland HIGH. Programmes e based on broad and good understanding of regional needs. Strategies developed further over the three programme periods and addressed regional needs: (i) provision of business infrastructure; (ii) high-quality telecoms infrastructure; (iii) modern water supply and wastewater system (fundamental bottleneck); (iv) modern product and services in tourism; (v) improvements to education infrastructure.
A lack of flexibility and adaptability to the changing needs of the programmes.
Itä-Suomi MODERATE. Relevance limited by need to accommodate 4 distinct sub-regional strategies in the programmes and, in first period; reactive approach focussed on declining industries. Correspondence between needs and programme goals has improved over time.
1995-1999 programme too focused on mature or declining industries & not sufficiently geared towards the support of the structural change processes necessary for the renewal of the production structure of the region.
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
HIGH. Programme strategies adequately matched the regional needs as perceived at the time. The more pronounced focus on innovation, R&D and competitiveness from 2000 was in tune with the region’s need for reconversion.
Support of traditional sectors in earlier periods, whilst protecting jobs and businesses in the short term, delayed transformation. Relevance hampered by implementation difficulties (coordination of local actors, mobilisation of SMEs to innovate).
Ireland HIGH. Changing emphases over time, but clear relevance throughout. From the outset, strategies were devised based on sound analyses of need (e.g. formal evaluations by ESRI, foresight exercises, wider political and public debates). Clearly, however, as focus of investment and availability/relative size of ERDF resources changed over time, needs have been addressed to a varying degree over time (whilst relevance was maintained throughout).
There might have been some missed opportunities: broadband/ICT and renewable energy. Domestic constraints limited the effectiveness of the strategies, i.e. limited public sector reform, transport regulation difficulties, absence of user charges in domestic water, a failure to develop a real regional development policy (NSS too late).
Basilicata MODERATE. Programmes were able to identify existing needs and to respond to them, but only in a partial way and key needs have remained unaddressed in all periods from 1994 (for differing reasons in each period). [This assessment only relates to the ROPs].
Algarve MODERATE. Overall relevant until 1999. Not fully relevant in 2000-2006 (economic diversification intended but not pursued as main focus continued to be on tourism) and in 2007-2013 (focus on competitiveness contested in the region and lack of acknowledgement of need for different sectoral specialisations and need to develop internal areas).
The focus on tourism in 1989-1993 and 1994-1999 meant that the productive fabric beyond this sector was neglected.
Focus on Lisbon is leading to a neglect of internal areas’ needs. Different sectoral specialisations also not adequately acknowledged.
Table 8: Assessment of relevance: ‘Objective 2/RCE’ Regions
Region Relevance Assessment
Aquitaine MODERATE. Until 1999 programmes based on domestic strategies/policies rather than needs analysis. 2000-2006 strategy not focussed due to divergent stakeholders needs). 2007-2013: greater focus, but some traditional fields (transport, tourism, culture) and needs of rural areas left out. Environment under- represented compared to need until 2007.
-
Nordrhein-Westfalen
HIGH. Programme strategies were relevant. However, ERDF programmes were a framework strategy: linking problems and activities rested on the regional initiatives.
No understanding of the nature of the change that structural adjustment would require. Poor appreciation of need for coordination between cities.
North East England
MODERATE. Difficulty to strike right balance: 1989-1993 focus on infrastructure meant that not all regional needs were addressed. 1994-1999: too many interventions and weak prioritisation. 2000-2006 concentration on entrepreneurship and innovation neglected some core needs (CED), and again in 2007-2013. Early programmes had little coherence between strategies and actual investment.
-
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 36 LSE
3.8 Complementarities & Synergies
The ERDF does not operate in a policy vacuum, but complements (and operates in parallel
with) other EU funds, notably the ESF and EAGGF/EAFRD, but also with domestic regional
policies and other domestic policies and spending programmes. EU regulations and guidance
expects that EU funds will be implemented in a complementary manner – which forms part
of the rationale for Community Support Framework or National Strategic Reference
Framework planning structures - whilst complementarities with domestic policies often
operate explicitly through co-financing or matching funding requirements.
3.8.1 Synergies among ERDF programmes
In the Convergence regions, the ERDF actions usually consisted of a combination of regional
and national thematic Operational Programmes, coordinated through the CSFs. Formal
planning requirements should lead to explicit complementarities, and in some regions this
was the case, notably where national programmes funded trans-regional transport
infrastructure whilst regional programmes funded local networks or stations. Such planning
frameworks may better match government structures in a country where national ministries
are responsible for major infrastructure spending whilst regional bodies have more limited
responsibilities for softer investments such as advice to business and local development
projects.
The coordination between national and regional level Operational Programmes, however,
was not always straightforward. In Basilicata and Campania, for instance, despite some
exceptions (notably transport, education and, to a more limited extent, research), national
and regional programmes were generally poorly linked, despite the formal existence of an
overarching cross-regional strategy, represented by the CSF. Elsewhere, there was a lack of
coordination in the earlier periods between, for example, Objective 2 and Objective 5b
programmes in adjacent areas, as well as between the mainstream programmes and the
Community initiatives. The latter did have an important role, though, in testing new
concepts and types of project that were later mainstreamed in the core ERDF programmes.
3.8.2 Synergies with ESF and other EU funds
The interaction between ERDF and ESF has historically been a major challenge for the
strategic management of the ERDF programmes (Davies, 2011; Bachtler and Mendez, 2010;
Taylor and Promé, 1997). Insofar as synergies could be achieved, they usually involved the
use of ERDF to create the infrastructure and fund equipment, and the ESF to fund training
activities. Whilst Operational Programmes have often sought to combine the two Funds,
sometimes within integrated actions, the ERDF and ESF have distinct objectives, targets,
operating rules/modalities, and coordinating entities (often operating with very different
mindsets). This presented difficulties in being able to linking the objectives to each other
and managing implementation.
For example, in the R&D sphere the ERDF funded buildings, research and lab equipment,
research activities, innovation projects in private firms and transfers from public and
private research centres to private firms, while the ESF funded the provision of training in
research centres, higher education institutions and in private firms. Sometimes combined
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 37 LSE
within a single, composite project, these activities required coordination between different
administrations/units which was not always easily achieved. More fundamental is the
question of whether, at a strategic level, there was correspondence between the strategic
employment and training objectives and priorities governing the regional use of ESF and the
sectoral or enterprise strategies being pursued through ERDF funding.
The 15 regions present some good examples of integration and synergy between ERDF and
ESF. One of the most positive examples of synergy between the Funds was in Ireland,
where a National Development Policy guided all ERDF programmes and ensured good
coordination between them, reducing overlap and duplication, and facilitating good
synergies with other EU programmes such as ESF and Fisheries Guidance. Good practice
examples included coordination between ERDF support for tourism product development
alongside ESF support for tourism training, and linked educational programme and
infrastructure support in the vocational training sector and universities. In Burgenland, too,
a good synergy was reported between ERDF support for training facilities and ESF
programmes, such as in the development of the University of Applied Sciences, in the
support of company relocation and in the tourism sector (where the ERDF generally funded
qualification measures and equipment, and the ESF provided training of human resources).
Positive ERDF/ESF coordination experiences were reported in Itä-Suomi where, for
example, ESF supported training programmes using ERDF supported clean-room facilities,
and a number of other innovation oriented projects drew on both funds.
Sachsen-Anhalt started to integrate sources from different EU funds to tackle urgent
problems at a very early stage. The ex post evaluation of the 1991-93 programme noted
that 44 projects integrating ERDF and ESF funding had been implemented. In these
projects, enterprises (mainly SMEs) received ERDF support to improve their technical
standards and enhance their competitiveness, while at same time the ESF supported
training activities to upgrade employee qualifications. Overall, these projects led to a
reported total of more than 4,000 jobs being created or safeguarded. Similarly, integrated
ERDF/EAGGF projects for the development of rural areas and infrastructure investments in
46 local communities were reported to have created more than 2,400 jobs. Despite this
apparent success, synergies or complementarities were judged to have been low or non-
existent in the first programme period. Subsequent evaluations revealed continual problems
with coordination, although in the 2000-2006 programme there was some bundling around
integrated priorities, and harmonisation of organisational procedures and reporting
requirements.
Further challenges, relevant to only some of the case study regions, arose in attempts to
achieve coordination with the EAGFF and EFF - a wider issue for ERDF programmes, as the
ex post evaluation of 2000-2006 programmes demonstrated (Applica et al., 2010, p.106). At
both strategic and operational levels, the experiences of the case study regions
demonstrated examples of both the exploitation of synergies and disjuncture between the
management of the Funds. Nevertheless, good examples of synergies between the ERDF and
the EAGGF can be found in Burgenland, and also in Dytiki Ellada, Andalucía and
Aquitaine. Burgenland saw the establishment of quality brands in food and viticulture and
their links with tourism, as well as in the development of national parks and the use of
EAGGF support for biomass linked with ERDF funded renewables projects. In Dytiki Ellada,
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 38 LSE
the LEADER initiative between 1994 and 2006 was important for the diversification of
mountainous and disadvantaged rural areas through tourism and small scale business,
complementing the investment delivered through the mainstream programmes. The switch
from agricultural subsidies to agri-tourism supported the move to an entrepreneurial
culture. Some of the strongest synergies between programmes were associated with the
Integrated Programmes of Rural Development (OPAAX) during 2000-2006 in selected
mountainous and disadvantaged rural areas. There was, however, less synergy with ESF
sectoral programmes, although ESF and ERDF did jointly fund social welfare projects: ERDF
supporting the infrastructure whilst ESF supported the operational costs.
Andalucía benefited from a LEADER initiative to develop tourist villages, and
complementarities within the Forest Plan: the ERDF financed water infrastructure, erosion
protection and fire prevention whilst EAGGF supported forest management programmes.
The ERDF and ESF were also used together to support entrepreneurship with training
activities for entrepreneurs alongside financial instruments and land and property projects.
In Aquitaine, good complementarity between the EAGGF and ERDF occurred in 2000-2006
around agro-food and forestry. Since 2007, however, the transfer of the EAFRD (formerly
the EAGGF) outside Cohesion policy has meant that the EAFRD took on sole responsibility
for a core set of rural development actions, with the ERDF dropping out of those actions,
although synergies still exist in the water and wood energy sectors.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the case study research on Algarve and Norte found
that, in Portugal, different ministries were responsible for ERDF, ESF and other funds and
were not adequately connected. There may have been a few cases in which synergies were
achieved at a project level, but these were not considered as evidence for a general
strategic complementarity between funds. Similar sectoral thinking was reported in Italy,
where individual ministries saw the Structural Funds as sources of funding for their own
plans for investment in the regions rather than integrated strategies across ministerial
responsibilities (although integration was sought and achieved in certain fields, such as
education and research).
Nordrhein-Westfalen also reported disappointing results regarding synergies between ESF
and ERDF due to the differences in implementation structures and ways of thinking.
Specific cases of good connection were realised at the project level, but this did not reflect
coordination in strategic terms, with even separate sub-regional structures for the two
programmes. The situation regarding EAFRD was also similar with some project-level
synergies but an absence of a common overall approach.
In the United Kingdom, ESF programmes since 2007 have been planned at a national level to
meet national needs which may be different to the objectives at a regional level. Hence in
North East England it was reported that specific needs identified through the ERDF
programme for higher level skills could not be addressed by ESF as it was targeted on basic
skills.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 39 LSE
3.9 Synergies with domestic programmes
Synergies with domestic programmes were largely determined by the need for matching
funding whereby ERDF and domestic programmes co-funded projects or industry assistance
schemes. At a strategic level, the integration between ERDF and domestic programmes
varied across the 15 regions. As elsewhere in the EU, the extent to which Cohesion policy
acted as a driver for domestic policy strategies (which tended to be the case for bigger
ERDF recipients) – or vice-versa domestic funding determined the strategic choices made
within the ERDF programmes (as tended to be the case in Member States and regions where
Cohesion policy had little financial weight and significance compared to domestic policies),
varied (Polverari et al., 2005). Nevertheless, arguably due to the top-down requirement to
align the ERDF programmes with the (Lisbon strategy) National Reform Programmes, the
strategic integration between the two strands of policy has increased, at least formally,
during the 2000s and especially in 2007-2013. From a more operational perspective, good
degrees of comprehensive integration and coordination between the two strands of policy
were recorded in Ireland, Dytiki Ellada, North East England, Itä-Suomi, Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Aquitaine and Nord-pas-de-Calais. More limited synergy, confined to specific
policy fields, was found in Campania.
In Ireland, ERDF in 2000-06 and 2007-13 has supported targeted elements of national
programmes, notably innovation. However, one area where EU and national policy have
differed is the regionalisation of programmes: strongly encouraged by the Commission, but
not enthusiastically received by national authorities. As a result, the new regional
structures developed were mainly limited to the implementation of the Structural Funds
and most policies remained nationally determined. Similarly, in Greece, domestic policy
was implemented through the Operational Programmes in the CSFs and hence the two
funding strands were strongly connected. Around 70 percent of the national Public
Investments Programme for the whole 1989-2013 period was allocated to meet the national
contribution to the Structural Funds.
The French regions saw close cooperation between the ERDF programmes and the state-
regional plans (CPERs) with complementary programmes to avoid direct duplication, and
harmonised timing and monitoring. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais, in 2007-2013, the CPER and ERDF
OP priorities were essentially the same. However other instruments such as the
competitiveness poles had less synergy with ERDF. In Aquitaine, the ERDF could have been
used to support technologies similar to the competitiveness poles, but differences in
eligibility made it a less attractive source than national funds. In both French regions, there
was also coordination under environmental policy since the Grenelle Environmental
agreement in 2007. This multipartite agreement between the state and all stakeholders
identified sustainability initiatives which were jointly funded by national funds and ERDF.
Synergies with domestic programmes in North East England were strong over much of the
period, but became increasingly tightly integrated during the 2000s because of the
emergence of regional development agencies. During the 1990s, a number of national
initiatives either sought ERDF co-funding, or submitted regional projects to ERDF
programmes. Some nationwide programmes in the 1990s such as the SPUR and SMART grant
schemes, or Business Link looked to ERDF to provide additional funding in the eligible
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 40 LSE
regions. However, with the formation of RDAs and the development of their own regional
programmes, and especially from 2007, the ERDF was expected to support projects within
these regional programmes, until the final demise of the RDAs in 2012.
In Itä-Suomi, the ERDF supported a number of projects within national programmes such as
the Centres of Excellence Programme (OSKE). Nordrhein-Westfalen also experienced good
connections between ERDF and domestic programmes, such as support for the state
programme for the International Building Exhibition Emscher Park where ERDF supplied
around 20 percent of the total funding, or the ERDF contribution to federal innovation
programmes. In the context of funding for integrated urban development, ERDF funding was
combined with national and federal programmes for urban development. Together with the
experience of the Community Initiatives URBAN I and II, the national and federal
programmes were used as the basis for developing the urban development funding approach
in the 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 ERDF programmes.
Elsewhere, there was more limited complementarity with domestic programmes. In
Campania, the main area of complementarity was in transport investment, with co-funding
of some parts of the Naples underground and the Battipaglia logistical hub from the
national ‘Legge Obiettivo’. Fundamentally, however, the Italian 2007-2013 NSRF’s attempt
to link the domestic and European regional development strategies more closely did not
succeed due to a change of national-level government priorities.
An example of relatively limited integration is represented by Sachsen-Anhalt. Prior to
2000, there were parallel domestic and ERDF programmes which were poorly coordinated
and provided competing funds. After 2000, there were attempts to develop region-level
integrated programmes in which projects had to target domestic as well as ERDF support,
but these did not work well and applicants preferred mono-fund programmes, as a result of
which the integrated programmes were discontinued. There seemed to be a general
preference for domestic programmes due to less demanding funding criteria.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 41 LSE
4. EXPENDITURE PATTERNS AND TRENDS
Analysing trends in spending of Structural and Cohesion Funds over time and across regions
has traditionally been problematic. Multiple sources, inconsistent reporting, and delays in
closing programmes and finalising expenditure have presented major challenges for
comparative research. It is only in the 2007-13 period that the Commission has been able to
introduce structured, systematic approach to Member States reporting on the financial
progress of programmes. This research study, therefore, has had to undertake primary
research based on a bottom-up classification and aggregation of measure-level expenditure
information, undertaken for each of the 15 regions, according to the methodology
described in more detail in Annex 2. Notwithstanding important data limitations and gaps,
this is the first analysis of long-term expenditure trends for the entire period from 1989 to
2012, reconstructing ex post the final expenditure at NUTS 2 level.10
Complementing the previous chapter on strategies, this chapter reviews the expenditure
patterns and trends across the 15 case study regions. It begins with an overview of total
recorded spending, and then discusses expenditure trends by thematic axis and category of
regions.
4.1 Overall expenditure trends
Over the period from 1989 to 2012, more than €146 billion of Structural Funds are
estimated to have been spent in the 15 regions (see Figure 4). The Objective
1/Convergence regions had the largest share, of 68.3 percent (c. €99.6 billion), with
Phasing-in/out and Objective 2/RCE regions representing a more modest 21.6 percent (c.
€31.5 billion) and 10.1 percent (c. €14.7 billion) respectively. Across the entire period,
allocations exceeded expenditure by around €14 billion (c. 9 percent of the initial
allocation). This figure should however be interpreted with great caution given that,
especially for early periods, it was not always possible to reconstruct the non-earmarked
regional allocations of the national or multiregional OPs (which overinflates expenditure
compared to allocations) and that this sum is negatively affected by the expenditure delays
of the 2007-13 programmes.
10 The ex post evaluations of the 1994-1999 ERDF programmes, for instance, only include reflections
on commitments (ECOTEC 2003; CSES 2003); the synthesis report of the ex post evaluation of 2000-2006 ERDF programmes includes elaborations on non-final expenditure data (at 31 December 2008), at Member State level only (Applica et al., 2009); whilst the thematic study on 2000-2006 ERDF and Cohesion Fund regional expenditure, undertaken when the programmes were still underway and published in 2008, whilst focusing on sub-national data (NUTS 2 and NUTS 3), only provides information on commitments (SWECO, 2008). The most recent report produced by the DG Regio Evaluation Network on 2007-2013 programmes (Ciffolilli et al., 2013) provides the thematic breakdown of the programmes’ planned, rather than actual expenditure. In relation to expenditure, the report focuses mainly on its evolution and on the reprogramming shifts between categories (i.e. planned expenditure).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 42 LSE
Figure 4: Total Structural Funds allocations compared to actual expenditure by regional groups and across all 15 regions (1989-2010/11/12) – Million Euro, 2000 values
Source: Own elaborations based on data collected by the regional teams. Data included are for ROPs and, where applicable, NOPs11 combined.
The discrepancy between planned and actual expenditure is the highest in absolute terms
in the Objective 1/Convergence regions (c. €10.2 billion).Again, however, the lack of
reliable data on allocations for some of the MOPs/NOPs affects the validity of this
assessment.
As a percentage of GDP, Structural Funds expenditure is the highest in: Dytiki Ellada
(almost four percent in 1994-1999 and over five percent in 2000-2006); Norte (6.1 in 2000-
06): and Algarve (5.29 in 2000-2006). Nordrhein-Westfalen had the lowest Structural Funds
expenditure in relation to GDP: less than 0.1 percent in each of the periods.
11 Again, there are some data gaps in relation to earlier periods and MOPs/NOPs expenditure, which could not always be regionalised. Detail can be found in the case study reports.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 43 LSE
Table 9: Annualised Structural Funds expenditure expressed as a percentage of GDP
1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013
Algarve 2.00 2.09 5.29 2.01
Andalucía 1.19 1.77 1.95 0.26
Aquitaine 0.13 0.54 0.41 0.22
Basilicata NA 1.61 2.59 1.07
Burgenland NA 3.78 2.32 0.38
Campania 0.34 0.58 2.27 0.53
Dytiki Ellada 0.52 3.83 5.05 2.49
Itä-Suomi NA 1.87 2.44 0.94
Galicia 0.87 1.66 1.93 0.36
Ireland 0.58 1.60 0.11 0.14
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 0.16 0.76 0.79 0.30
Nordrhein-Westfalen 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08
Norte 1.50 2.72 6.12 8.60
Sachsen-Anhalt 2.06 2.8 2.97 1.12
North East England NA 0.52 0.40 0.09
Source: own elaboration based on regional expenditure data collected by the regional teams.
Note: for the 2007-2013 period, annualised expenditure for the Aquitaine and Norte regions is based on total allocations divided by seven years. This is because data on the last is absent. For the other regions, annualised expenditure for the last period has been calculated taking into account the number of years of actual expenditure, provided by each region. See Annex 2 to see last year tracked.
4.2 Expenditure by thematic axis
Turning the analysis of expenditure by thematic axis, Figure 5 shows the total Structural
Funds expenditure of each region across the whole study period and the relative weight
assigned to the eight thematic axes. Andalucía and Norte spent the most (with c. €26.3
and €29.9 billion respectively), followed closely by Sachsen-Anhalt (€20.4 billion) and
Campania (€17.5 billion)).12 Burgenland is the region with the lowest spend, c. €1.7 billion
over the entire period: not a negligible figure nevertheless, given the size of the region, the
fact that Cohesion policy support started only in 1995, and in GDP terms (representing c.
3.78, 2.32 and 0.38 percent of GDP in each programme period respectively from 1995 to
date).
The proportion of spend across the themes varies considerably among the regions, ranging
from a strong emphasis on enterprise support in Burgenland (56 percent of total
expenditure from 1989 to date) and Itä-Suomi (59 percent), to a predominance of
infrastructure spending in the two Spanish regions (representing 61 percent of total
expenditure in Galicia and 49 percent in Andalucía), in Dytiki Ellada (43 percent), and in
Ireland (37 percent). Aquitaine, Sachsen-Anhalt and Campania show a concentration of
12 The data limitations already noted apply. In particular, the figures for Basilicata are underestimated given that the data included in the analysis only comprise ERDF (and not all Structural Funds) and the ROPs only for the periods 1989-1993 and 1994-1999. Similarly, for Algarve and Dytiki Ellada actual expenditure is underestimated by the lack of data on the expenditure for some or most of the NOPs.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 44 LSE
expenditure on two main themes (enterprise and structural adjustment in Aquitaine and
Sachsen-Anhalt, and enterprise and infrastructure in Campania), whilst the remaining
regions display more mixed expenditure patterns, with no dominant theme.
The relative distribution of expenditure across the eight themes and its evolution over time
can be more precisely appraised from the next three figures, which provide a period-by-
period disaggregation of expenditure for the three regional aggregates, the Objective
1/Convergence, Phasing-in/out and Objective 2/RCE regions in turn (Figure 6, Figure 7 and
Figure 8).
Figure 6 shows a predominance of infrastructure spending across all programme periods
(except 2007-2013) in the Objective 1/Convergence regions, ranging from 43 percent of
total expenditure in 1989-1993, to 27 percent in 1994-1999 and 30 percent in 2000-2006,
and to a low of 14 percent in 2007-2013. Another prominent theme is structural adjustment
which remained over 20 percent from 1989-1999 (22 percent in 1989-1984, 24 percent in
1994-1999) but decreased sharply to six percent in the 2000-2006 period before growing
again to 13 percent in 2007-2013. The main thematic shift across periods in this group of
regions was the relative growth of the categories of social cohesion and labour markets
starting in the 2000-06 period. Perhaps surprisingly, innovation is shown as remaining
broadly stable, accounting for five and ten percent of total expenditure in the first two
programme periods, and then seven percent in 2000-2006 and eight percent in 2007-2013.
The environmental theme too has remained broadly stable throughout, at around 15
percent of total expenditure, with a downward trend in 2007-2013 (11 percent, compared
to 12-17 percent respectively in previous periods).
The situation is similar in the 1989-93 period for the Phasing-in/out regions (Figure 7), with
expenditure strongly polarised around infrastructure (58 percent of expenditure). However,
the composition of expenditure in Phasing-in/out regions becomes more diversified over the
following programme periods, with a predominance of enterprise support (34 percent, 38
percent and 21 percent respectively in 1994-1999, 2000-2006 and 2007-2013) and, in the
2007-13 period, structural adjustment and innovation (respectively at 23 and 22 percent of
expenditure).
Lastly, Figure 8 demonstrates a strong focus in the three Objective 2/RCE regions on
enterprise in the first three programme periods (with 50 percent of the money spent on this
theme in 1989-1993, later falling to 30 percent (1994-1999), 35 percent (2000-2006) and 14
percent (2007-2013) and a marked shift towards innovation and social cohesion in the
current period. In the current period, moreover, there is no expenditure on labour market
in this group of regions, largely due to the mono-fund nature of the programmes. In the
Objective 2/RCE regions, two themes record the least expenditure throughout the study
period: spatial distribution of economic activities and environmental sustainability.
However, whilst the former has progressively diminished (from ten percent in both 1989-
1993 and 1994-1999, to three percent in the 2000-06 period and no expenditure in 2007-
13), the latter has seen its share double since 2000-2006 (from four percent to 11 percent
of total expenditure).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 45 LSE
Figure 5: Total Structural Funds expenditure per region and theme - Million Euro, 2000 values*
*Representative of available expenditure data only (see Annex 2).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 46 LSE
Figure 6: Total Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Objective 1/Convergence’ regions’ regions, by programme period and theme – percentage values*
*Representative of available expenditure data only (see Annex 2).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 47 LSE
Figure 7: Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Phasing-in/out’ regions, by programme period and theme – percentage values*
*Representative of available expenditure data only (see Annex 2).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 48 LSE
Figure 8: Total Structural Funds expenditure in ‘Objective 2/RCE’ regions, by programme period and theme, percentage values*
*Representative of available expenditure data only (see Annex 2).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 49 LSE
5. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES
5.1 Introduction
The considerable investments made by the ERDF in the 15 case study regions can be
expected to have made significant differences to the development of these regions.
Increasingly, these expectations have been specified in the objectives of programmes as
noted previously, and this chapter examines the nature of the achievements in the regions
as a result of this investment.
There is no simple, single assessment of achievements: they can and have been assessed
over time in a variety of different ways, sometimes rigorously, sometimes barely at all. This
chapter is the first of three that examine achievements, focusing on the achievements
reported by the regions and a qualitative assessment of the achievements within each of
the eight themes identified in this study. The subsequent chapters then examine
quantitatively the achievements compared with needs and objectives and the impact of the
programmes on regional performance.
This chapter begins by reviewing the nature of achievements and the methodology used in
assessing reported and actual achievements. It distinguishes between two sorts of
achievements.
Reported achievements are as reported by the programme managers in their annual and
final implementation reports to the Commission. Typically, these are output measures
reflecting the activities undertaken by projects, indicators relating to the effects that
the projects have on beneficiaries and the wider region, and qualitative case studies of
projects and their results. Actual achievements may differ from those reported because
the latter may underestimate or overestimate achievements, for a number of reasons
explained in the next section. The calculation of actual achievements at programme
level requires either detailed auditing of each project or macroeconomic analysis, but
here an assessment of actual achievements is made on a thematic basis to identify what
kinds of interventions have worked in each of the regions.
5.2 The nature of achievements
ERDF expenditure in any region will deliver various types of achievements. They encompass
the direct outputs of the projects and the wider changes they stimulate within the region;
they can be anticipated by formal targets or can be unanticipated or accidental; they can
be measured using numerical metrics or softer indicators, or be purely qualitative in
nature; and they can have positive or negative consequences for the region. The complex
nature of achievements presents problems for research and evaluation, as some things are
measureable and measured, whilst others are not. A comprehensive view needs to cover all
aspects, but usable data are inevitably easier to obtain for the measured aspects, even if
what is measured may not be the most useful indicators of desired changes.
Typically, for each programme, a set of indicators is agreed between programme
authorities and the Commission at the outset, against which the targets for each measure
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 50 LSE
can be monitored, and then recorded in annual and final implementation reports submitted
by programme authorities to the European Commission. These indicators have been refined
over the study period from being more-or-less absent in 1989-1993 through to being
relatively sophisticated in 2007-2013 period. Outputs are indicators that relate to activities
and which are used to monitor the immediate deliverables of projects.13 They could
encompass a physical measure of the completeness of projects such as kilometres of
completed road, or hectares of restored land; or the number of beneficiaries assisted,
usually in the form of numbers of firms or individuals. In the case of support for firms or
individuals, the indicator might differentiate between the form of support offered (scale of
advice measured in value or days of consultancy) or according to the status of the
beneficiary (unemployed individuals, women, people from particularly disadvantaged
areas).
A second level of reported achievements are results and impacts. During the programme
periods covered in the research, managing authorities were advised by Commission
guidance to define results as the (immediate) effects on the direct beneficiaries of the
actions financed, while impacts were the longer term effects of interventions on the global
or specific objectives of the programme. Impacts were typically reduced to a small set of
indicators such as employment created, increase in SME activity, or a more thematically
specific indicator such as numbers of new firms created. Whilst outputs may be the direct
and sole result of an intervention – a project to build a road will result in km of road built –
the impacts are more likely to be the consequence of a combination of ERDF intervention
and other activities as an illustration, a new firm may be partly assisted by an ERDF
project, but will also be the result of additional private investment and, possibly, nationally
funded interventions as well.
Despite the emphasis placed in programme reports on the development of quantitative
measures of outputs, they only tell part of the story, even though ever more complex
metrics have been developed to capture the diverse forms of interventions, such as advice
to firms. Sensible output indicators for activities such as business support are difficult to
identify – differentiating between advice given in a seminar or over the phone, and an
intensive consulting engagement can be made by referring to the time or cost involved, but
does not necessarily reflect the quality of the advice. Aggregation across a range of
projects then becomes impossible. Instead, some achievements are best identified through
qualitative targets and descriptions of services offered, although these tend to be related
more to project case studies than programmes as a whole.
The assessment of quantitative reported achievements by programme managers faced a
number of difficulties which may have led to under or over reporting, including at times
simple deception by projects, all of which feature in the case study reports.
13 European Commission, Directorate General XVI, Regional Policy and Cohesion (undated) The New Programming period 2000-2006: Methodological Working Papers. Working Paper 3, Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An indicative methodology, available online from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf (accessed 12 September 2013).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 51 LSE
There is a tension between the number of discrete indicators and the specificity of outputs.
The variety of outputs may require a long list of output indicators whereas simplicity of
reporting may make fewer indicators desirable. Even for something as simple as road-
building, it may be desirable to differentiate between a dual freeway, normal main roads
and local roads, as well as between new roads and upgraded roads. A large number of
different indicators may be needed to capture the variety, and any simplification therefore
reduces accuracy, and can be misleading or result in variance from initial targets. If the
indicator is simply km of roads, then should a dual freeway count as twice the length?
Programme managers usually depend on projects to provide data. Managers of projects may
have limited information on some kinds of outputs, may find it difficult to attribute the
outputs of projects to standard indicators, or may provide misleading information to
programme managers. Aggregated data will thus be subject to the limitations of the
project-level data.
The process of aggregation also potentially introduces errors where double-counting occurs.
There may be several projects aiming to provide advice to firms, each reporting the
number of firms assisted. In some cases, this approaches the number of firms in the region
as each incidence of advice is counted separately, even though the indicator might be the
number of firms assisted. Recognising that there is multiple counting here, it is still
impossible to know whether a large number of firms received some advice or a small
number of firms each received many different interventions. Unless each project produces
a list of beneficiary firms and these are reconciled, it is difficult to assess how many firms
were assisted. It may not be in the interest of a project even to indicate the number of
unique companies assisted.
Results or impacts are even more difficult to assess by both project managers and
programme managers. In some programmes, monitoring data included estimates of results,
such as jobs housed in new business parks. However, such impacts may take time to unfold,
and estimations made at the time of completion of the funding may seriously understate or
overestimate the longer term effects. An innovation project may not deliver job creation
until several years later when a product has become successful in the market, while a
factory building will not house jobs until a tenant has been found, again perhaps only after
one or two years. Monitoring data cannot capture these effects. They need to be appraised
with ad hoc evaluation activities, although even then these are usually undertaken before
longer term effects are realised, and are usually only based on a sample of projects.
A particular problem with some very large infrastructure projects is that, as noted earlier,
the duration of construction of the project is longer than a single programme period. When
a project has to be broken down into several phases, there may be few direct achievements
in the earlier phases. Roads, ports, railways etc. often take many years to complete with
the full benefits only being seen when the project is complete (CSIL and DKM, 2012)14,
although some benefits may be realised and measured on an interim basis. The Rion-Antiron
14 CSIL and DKM (2012) Ten Projects Observed: Ex Post Evaluation of Investment Projects Co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) or Cohesion Fund (CF) in the Period 1994-1999, Final Report, European Commission.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 52 LSE
bridge in Dytiki Ellada, for example, involved preparatory studies in the 1989-1993 period
with construction during both the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 periods. Further, the different
tranches through which such large infrastructure projects are realised may draw from
different sources of funding, e.g. from domestic spending programmes. This makes it
difficult to disentangle the specific contribution of the ERDF programmes.
The estimation of actual results on a quantitative basis through evaluation is subject to all
of the problems identified for the reported achievements, with the added difficulty that if
not done contemporaneously there may be a loss of information linking the output with the
impact. If done contemporaneously then the problems of assessing long term benefits
occur.
Consequently, in this study, the reported achievements were taken primarily from the final
implementation reports or evaluation documents. This analysis concentrated on a
programme-by-programme assessment against the output targets set for the programme.
Whilst some qualitative reporting was available, this was anecdotal and tended to be at a
project level whereas the analysis of reported achievements was undertaken at programme
level.
A separate analysis was undertaken on a thematic basis drawing on quantitative and
qualitative reported information, evaluations, interviews with stakeholders and other
available information. In some cases, for example, projects were subject to evaluations
undertaken at a much later date than ERDF evaluations, which provided useful additional
information on longer term impacts. This collection of information was necessarily partial
and could not provide total results, but it was possible to identify instances of interventions
which resulted in significant changes in a region.
5.3 Reported achievements
5.3.1 1989-1993
In the 1989-1993 period, the requirements for reporting achievements were almost non-
existent, and in most of the 15 regions documentation was difficult to obtain. At this time,
most regions focused on demonstrating that funding had been spent on the projects which
had been agreed, and any indicators that were available related to either financial progress
or physical output indicators such as kilometres of roads built. In some regions, lists of
projects were produced (e.g. Campania), but in most cases there are no quantitative data
available.
In seven regions, detailed output indicators were available from final reports or
evaluations. Typically these consisted of numbers of projects where they involved a
building (sports facilities, for example, in Norte or modernised training facilities in Nord-
Pas-de-Calais), studies/plans, or SMEs assisted. The other main group of indicators related
to the scale of output such as area of land reclaimed, km of roads, railways or
water/sewerage networks, or hotel rooms. These indicators allow some comparison
between output achievements and original targets (when there are targets), although given
that regions were unused to such programming, the variation between targets and outputs
may be due to unrealistic targets rather than poor delivery. As an illustration, Nord-Pas-de-
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 53 LSE
Calais only achieved 115,800 m2 of premises built or rehabilitated against a target of
250,000 m2, but it may be that the target was set using typical costs for lower grade
buildings than were built, or that funds were directed to different types of project.
In the Objective 1 regions, the major achievement indicators related to networks, for
example, 639 km of improved roads and 1,264 km of water and sewerage networks in
Norte, and 118 km of water pipes and 80 km of sewerage networks and some 134 km of
roads constructed or improved in the Algarve.
In Dytiki Ellada, there were some indications of impact: the population served by water
supply projects reached 42 per cent, and service by wastewater treatment increased from
three to 30 per cent; 1,162 jobs were reported as being created, of which 245 were
permanent jobs rather than temporary construction jobs. Ireland provided more detailed
achievement indicators with, for example, 20,000 net new jobs per year during the period
in manufacturing and traded services, and 11,474 net new jobs over four years. These
figures however relate to all supported firms, and not all benefited from ERDF supported
initiatives; they indicate that manufacturing in particular only maintained employment
compared with a decline in previous years – the net new jobs were mainly in services.
Ireland also saw strong annual output growth of six per cent and a 75 per cent increase in
SME exports by the mid-1990s, but this was also driven by macroeconomic policies and
other interventions, as well as ERDF expenditure. Tourism grew substantially with a 33 per
cent increase in visitors and 20,000 net new FTE jobs over the period, with at least a
substantial proportion of this being due to the investment in new visitor attractions, tourist
waterways and marinas, golf courses etc.
The most detailed results are available for the German regions. In Nordrhein-Westfalen, an
interim evaluation by the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung reported a total of 17,000 jobs created or
safeguarded directly with a further 7,000 ‘likely to be created’. Specific outputs included
116 ha of re-utilised wasteland, 17,200 m2 of reused buildings and 13 new technology
incubator centres. In Sachsen-Anhalt, over a shorter period (1991-93), aid for business led
to a reported 36,321 jobs created or maintained, although much of the support was judged
to be subsidies for on-going businesses.
5.3.2 1994-1999
The 1994-1999 period saw more detailed development of indicators and targets, both of
outputs and results. However, this was not done systematically across all regions. The new
entrant regions of Burgenland and Itä-Suomi established only a very limited set of targets,
and experienced difficulties in assessing achievements. Some of the other regions also had
estimation problems. Nordrhein-Westfalen, for example, only completed the development
of its monitoring system in 1996, and Aquitaine reported problems of lack of
standardisation and an emphasis on output indicators. These difficulties can be illustrated
by some examples.
In Burgenland, hardly any targets were set initially, and only later was an
employment target of 7,300 new jobs set, revised to include safeguarded jobs. The
actual reported result of 2,216 new jobs was a gross value, whilst the 5,887
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 54 LSE
safeguarded jobs included the total number of people employed by supported
firms. Clearly, many of the jobs reported as safeguarded would have been
unaffected by the intervention, and a proportion of the new jobs would have been
offset by displacement losses elsewhere.
In Itä-Suomi, new and safeguarded jobs were poorly defined, with the Objective 6
programme declaring 21,000 new jobs and 62,000 safeguarded jobs against a
combined target of just over 29,000. An ex post evaluation suggested that a true
figure might be 10-20 per cent of the reported figure. The Objective 5b programme
also reported 102,000 jobs created or safeguarded compared with a target of
22,000, implausibly high figures of around a third of total employment in the
region. In both cases, the estimates seem to have interpreted numbers of jobs
safeguarded very liberally, and to have included employment growth that would
have taken place without assistance.
In the case of North East England, Objective 2 programmes ran for two periods of
three years each (1994-96 and 1997-99), and the two programmes had separate
reporting of achievements. This led to some difficulties in meeting targets,
especially for results indicators such as jobs or GDP, as projects had less time
before reporting to meet employment targets, for example. This was especially
problematic for office and factory provision; the short programme period meant
that it was difficult to complete construction within the three-year period, meaning
they missed their targets for jobs housed, and thus making it likely that projects
were underestimated compared to if the region had had a single six year
programme.
Overall, regions reported a wide range of outputs. In Campania, for instance, the ex-post
evaluation of the 1994-99 CSF provides an estimate of the regional-specific outputs of
support in terms of new road stock, rail tracks and dual tracks, fibre optic, water
purification plants, firms assisted, provision of tourist accommodation (ISMERI, 2002: 160-
165). This makes comparison difficult, but there was some standardisation of results,
notably around gross jobs created or safeguarded (the latter often being ill-defined). Table
10, below, shows the reported employment effects of the programmes, although noting
that for some regions this is restricted to the regional programme only and excludes the
employment effects of national programmes in the regions.15 The table also illustrates the
continued variability even of this indicator, with differences between net and gross jobs
being reported, temporary and permanent jobs, jobs in construction, and also lack of
clarity sometimes between new and safeguarded jobs. The reliability of the data is highly
variable, especially for safeguarded jobs which were often just the numbers of existing jobs
in assisted firms, regardless of whether the assistance was instrumental in keeping the
business going. Those programmes with an emphasis on support for firms (such as Sachsen-
Anhalt, Itä-Suomi, Nord-Pas-de-Calais or North East England) tended to report much
higher levels of jobs created (or safeguarded). Programmes with a greater emphasis on
15 The tables on employment creation are provided for illustrative purposes: they represent only the raw numbers, and not the significance of the impact (relative to the size of the regional workforce for example).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 55 LSE
infrastructure sometimes reported relatively low levels of new jobs, although temporary
jobs in construction may be considerable.
In some of the regions (Andalucía, Galicia, Dytiki Ellada, Basilicata, Algarve) estimates of
jobs created are limited to the regional programmes only, or to specific measures (Norte).
In these cases, the numbers are relatively small as many more jobs may be created through
national infrastructure programmes or business support programmes that cover the region.
It therefore makes it impossible to compare these figures with total regional employment
or expenditure, as the missing data would make the comparison meaningless, even if the
estimations had been made using comparable methodologies.
Table 10: Reported jobs created or safeguarded for 1994-1999
Region Jobs created or safeguarded 1994-1999
Sachsen-Anhalt 28,348 jobs created, 55,217 jobs safeguarded
Dytiki Ellada 5,881 temporary jobs, 718 new jobs (ROP only)
Campania 17,646 temporary jobs, 9629 permanent new jobs
Norte 5,860 new jobs from firm incentives
Andalucía 7,780 new jobs created in industry and services, 11,739 retained. (ROP only)
Galicia 26,684 jobs created of which 16,754 in infrastructure and 9.930 in industry/services (ROP only)
Burgenland 2,216 net jobs created, 5,887 net jobs safeguarded
Itä-Suomi 21,000 new jobs and 62,000 safeguarded jobs via Objective 6 and 102,000 jobs created or safeguarded under Objective 5b
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 11,847 gross new jobs, 4,508 indirect gross new jobs, 8,422 safeguarded jobs
Ireland c.33,000 net new jobs
Basilicata 2,329 new jobs in SMEs (ROP only)
Algarve 319 permanent new jobs and 2810 temporary jobs (ROP only)
Aquitaine 14,560 new jobs, 21,695 safeguarded jobs
Nordrhein-Westfalen 12,400 new jobs, 13,600 safeguarded jobs
North-East England 14,633 jobs created and 7,355 safeguarded in 1994-6: 25,395 gross additional jobs, of which 13,267 net additional jobs and 7,116 jobs safeguarded in 1997-99.
Source: Case study reports.
5.3.3 2000-2006
The 2000-2006 programmes saw further efforts to enhance monitoring processes, and more
specific output and results indicators, but output indicators were still diverse and were
sometimes too numerous to be accurately tracked (e.g. the Sachsen-Anhalt and Campania
ROPs had respectively c. 780 and 350 indicators), and results were problematic. As with the
previous programmes, jobs created was the most common results indicator, but with
continuing variation in how this was reported (see Table 11 below).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 56 LSE
With larger budgets in many cases, and a greater emphasis on support for firms also, the
jobs created estimates tend to be much higher than the previous period, although doubts
remain about their accuracy. The figure of 317,000 jobs safeguarded in Andalucía appears
to be a generous estimate, although it should be noted that some 780,000 jobs were
created in the region between 2000 and 2006, according to Eurostat data, taking total
employment to 3.1 million.
The 2000-2006 programmes were much more oriented to the Lisbon agenda, and hence they
had a greater focus on enterprise and innovation, reflected in targets for outputs and
results, although in some regions there were difficulties in meeting these targets. In
Burgenland, for example, a manifestly overly ambitious target of 700 technology business
start-ups saw just 33 being realised. In Andalucía, assistance for people to be involved in
R&D transfer saw just 196 assisted against a target of 4,420. This epitomises the danger of
early setting of quantitative targets, especially where the region lacks the expertise to
deliver such projects. In the case of innovation and enterprise, most regions seem to have
been seduced by the success stories of regions with strong innovation systems, and
proposed ambitious targets as a result.
Table 11: Reported jobs created or safeguarded for 2000-2006
Region Jobs created or safeguarded 2000-2006
Sachsen-Anhalt 20,950 jobs created and 56,733 jobs safeguarded
Dytiki Ellada 2,310 permanent new jobs in enterprises and 14,824 temporary jobs in construction
Campania 12,542 new or maintained jobs through ROP support measures to firms + 664 new jobs in tourist firms + 486 new or maintained jobs deriving from integrated projects in parks (ROP only)
Norte 3,108 jobs created (ROP only)
Andalucía 49,797 jobs created and 316,757 retained, plus 140,580 jobs in infrastructure construction (ROP only)
Galicia 78,880 total jobs created, 67,754 in infrastructure and 11,126 in industry and services. (ROP only)
Burgenland 3,008 net new jobs
Itä-Suomi 30,789 jobs created and 45,025 jobs safeguarded
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 27,661 temporary jobs in projects, between 33,000 and 43,000 direct and indirect jobs created
Ireland No estimate provided
Basilicata* No estimate provided
Algarve 14,000 new jobs
Aquitaine 12,470 net new jobs
Nordrhein- Westfalen
14,100 new and 14,800 retained jobs from direct funding plus 17,000 new and 45,000 safeguarded jobs through business advice.
North-East England*
48,000 gross jobs created and 56,000 safeguarded, with estimated 35,000 net new jobs
Source: Case study reports.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 57 LSE
5.3.4 2007-2013
In the 2007-2013 period, data are very limited due to delays in the commencement of many
programmes, the lags in the production of annual implementation reports and the effects of
the reorientation of programmes to fit new challenges and situations. In some regions,
austerity measures have slowed implementation due to a lack of matched funding, making
overall comparative analysis of achievements difficult at this stage. In several regions,
annual implementation reports reveal slow progress on key indicators, especially indicators
relating to results, such as job creation. Inevitably, too, the depth of the recession will
have had a negative effect.
Although there have been modest improvements in the implementation of output target
indicators and greater attention paid to economic results, there are still problems in
monitoring the achievements of ERDF programmes. In some regions, such as Andalucía and
Galicia, new information systems have been introduced but with delays in their
operationalisation. Some regions have been reducing the number of indicators. Itä-Suomi
for example both reduced the number of indicators and defined them more precisely,
removing the indicator for ‘renewed jobs’ and refining the definitions of the remaining
employment figures. Sachsen-Anhalt reduced the number of indicators from 776 to 300 but
further consolidation is needed. Yet, concerns remain about the qualitative aspects of
these indicators – output indicators for buildings give consistently defined costs per unit of
floorspace, but do not indicate the heterogeneity of projects. Problems also remain with
measuring outputs relating to advice to SMEs. Streamlined indicator systems allow for
easier aggregation and management of programmes, but are not necessarily any more
helpful for evaluators seeking to judge the effectiveness of programmes. Problems of
aggregation, additionality and duplication of measurement remain. At the level of results,
all regions seem to have difficulties, especially as the main effects are likely to take place
beyond the end of the programme.
5.4 Thematic evaluation of achievements
The reported achievements are limited in nature and concentrate on monitoring data
relating to outputs. To arrive at a better understanding of the longer term achievement of
the programmes, a thematic approach was taken which focused on the eight themes
identified earlier in the study. In each region, the outputs of activity related to each theme
were reviewed alongside additional evaluative information and interviews with
beneficiaries, programme managers and other stakeholders. The aim was to understand the
detailed nature of interventions within each theme, how they related to objectives and
needs, what the underlying theories that led to intervention choices were, and what
changes happened as a consequence. The resulting analysis is highly specific to each region,
but the following section summarises the approaches and draws out general points about
the types of effects realised.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 58 LSE
5.4.1 Innovation
ERDF investment in innovation has been growing in significance over the 4-5 programme
periods from being a very minor priority in 1989-1993 to one of the largest spending themes
in some regions in 2007-2013. Achievements in this area have increased dramatically over
time, as well as often shifting in emphasis as regions have gained experience of
intervention in support of RTD and innovation, and developed more sophisticated
approaches to regional innovation systems.
Several alternative paths can be identified, and these are reflected in the varied nature of
the achievements. In some of the Objective 1/Convergence regions (e.g. Algarve,
Andalucía, Galicia, Norte), the initial focus was on building up public research capacity,
mainly in universities, with a gradual broadening out of the agenda to encompass business
R&D, innovation support and science parks. In Basilicata, which exited Objective 1 status in
2007, there was specific support for two research laboratories. Campania had a strategy to
increase R&D supported by both national and regional programmes, which supported the
construction or improvement of university buildings and equipment (during the study
period, the Second University of Naples and the University of Sannio were created, and
other universities improved their premises), and the establishment and growth of public
and private research centres. Some of these centres have been able to survive on the basis
of private funding despite the reduction of research funds within Italy. Elsewhere, the
initial focus was on accommodation for innovative business with a shift to include
investments in research and innovation networks. Some of the former Objective 2 regions
began with a focus on support for innovation in SMEs, as they were already reasonably well
endowed with innovation centres and universities, but emerging sectoral strategies have
involved new technology centres, investment in research and new kinds of science parks.
A number of the case study regions focused on stimulating R&D growth, especially after
2000, to meet Lisbon and Barcelona targets. Often, this was led by investment in the public
sector, and especially universities, which could most easily absorb the investment. Norte is
a typical case of a Convergence region where RTD investment was minimal up to 2000, but
since then substantial investment has been directed to local universities for research
facilities and project funding. Some of this investment has provided the core competences
of a health sector cluster in the region and underpins the award-winning Porto University
Science and Technological Park. Andalucía also promoted public research through much of
this period, and especially since 2000, with 2,109 research groups (mainly in universities)
employing 18,583 researchers benefitting from support during 2000-2006 (although there
may be some double-counting here).
Such approaches have undoubtedly been beneficial in boosting the overall level of research
in some of the regions, although the degree of sustainability varies. Ireland used ERDF to
build up research institutes to underpin key sectors of the economy and modernised the
universities as a core element of a knowledge-based economic development strategy. In
Portugal and Spain, the considerable funding that went into research projects in
universities lacked such a strategic vision, and the long term benefits are more elusive. A
lack of prioritisation, with funding being distributed widely across large numbers of
research groups, also seems to have been less effective in translation into economic
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 59 LSE
development. Nevertheless, a result of this investment across all Spanish regions has been a
doubling of Spanish contributions to global scientific publications, from 1.28 per cent in
1990 to 2.63 per cent in 2004, with Andalucía slightly increasing its share from 13.1 to 14.4
per cent of the increased level of Spanish publications.
In the private sector, firms have been supported through technology transfer offices in the
universities and a smaller number of private sector projects, but the achievements have
been uneven. A notable success is the Technology Park of Andalucía which now houses
14,599 employees in 562 companies and organisations. This park itself is claimed to be
worth 6-8 per cent of GDP in the Malaga province. It is not clear, though, how many of
these firms are genuinely high technology, or have emerged as a consequence of the
intervention, as such parks tend to attract existing local firms and have a high level of
deadweight. But, in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, despite investments in new research centres in the
1990s and technology advice to enterprises, the effects on regional R&D levels and
patents16 were limited, and the region’s RTD strengths remained primarily public sector
focused. However, since 2007 there has been a new emphasis on innovation with a new
platform for innovation focused on growth in private sector R&D.
Overall, Ireland has perhaps been most successful here, with R&D as a share of GNP
reaching 2.21 per cent in 2010, a massive increase from the 1980s when it was below one
per cent, with some of the improvement having been facilitated by ERDF investments. This
has involved both expansion in the public sector and, especially, growth in the tertiary
education sector to exceed the EU average, as well as growth in the private sector. Whilst
multinational firms still account for most R&D expenditure, there has also been significant
growth in research performed by indigenous SMEs, and high levels of R&D have been
maintained during the recession. Some regions, though, have struggled to achieve any real
improvement in the innovation activities of firms. Dytiki Ellada, for example, still had a
level of business expenditure on R&D (BERD) of only 0.1 per cent of GDP during the 2000-08
period, reflecting a failure to translate public R&D investment into private sector
innovation.
In the Objective 2/RCE regions the approach to innovation has been orientated much more
towards businesses. For example, Nordrhein-Westfalen initially focused on technology
centres and technology transfer, then moved on to a cluster or competence network
development process. Some of the initial technology centres were quite successful,
illustrated by the growth of micro and nanotechnology in Nordrhein-Westfalen from 925
employees in 1999 to 2,274 in 2008. The cluster-type initiatives have also had a varied
success rate as the time needed for the maturity of these policies is quite extended. There
has been criticism that some strategies are insufficiently focused and do not build on
existing strengths – criticisms addressed in part by the proposals for smart specialisation
from 2014 onwards.
16 Programme achievements in relation to number of patents registered is discussed for all 15 regions in more detail in Section 7.3.2.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 60 LSE
In North East England, the initial emphasis was on innovation support and advice for SMEs,
with a particularly successful collaborative scheme to connect SMEs with experts across the
region’s five universities. With just over €4m of ERDF support over three programmes, the
programme generated around €40 million by value of private sector spending on
consultancy in the universities. After 2000, the region refocused its innovation support
around a small number of key research and commercialisation institutes. The most
successful of these were linked to renewable energy and process industries and are now
national centres of excellence, sustained by national funds and private sector contracts.
5.4.2 Enterprise
Enterprise is another theme which has become central to regional strategies and
programmes over the study period and has also become more sophisticated in the forms of
intervention. At the core of most regional programmes has been a desire to increase the
number of SMEs through support for entrepreneurship or to stimulate growth in existing
SMEs through support for competitiveness. In a few cases In Sachsen-Anhalt, and in the
Algarve, Norte, Andalucía and Galicia, support for enterprise also encompassed larger
firms, but in other regions this was usually undertaken more indirectly through support for
structural and sectoral change or through infrastructure etc.
Although the case studies report notable achievements in support for SMEs, they also raise
doubts about the true additionality of the results, as the following examples indicate.
There was major expenditure in Itä-Suomi aimed at raising productivity, expanding
capacity or improving quality, but evaluations have questioned the additionality, as
many projects would have gone ahead without support.
In the 1990s Galicia also provided subsidies for loans to SMEs to support capital
investment, with a €194.5m fund inducing €1.6bn investment and creating a
reported 9,789 jobs, but the main sectors supported included retail as well as food
and fishing, again raising questions about deadweight.
In some regions, results were slow to emerge. Both North East England and Nord-Pas-de-
Calais sought to increase the number of SMEs through support for entrepreneurship over the
whole period, with limited success initially but improved results after 2000. Thus, the rate
of start-ups in Nord-Pas-de-Calais exceeded the national rate, even though the density of
entrepreneurs remained below national levels. In North East England, a more
comprehensive enterprise support system led to increased formation rates after 2000,
though still below national levels. Efforts to provide venture capital in the 1997-99
programme set the foundations for bigger schemes in 2000-2006 and for a large Jeremie
fund in 2007. Initial results for this shows 850 firms supported and over 5,000 jobs created
by 2011.
Some common approaches appeared to bear fruit. Most regions developed some form of
incubators to support new business starts. In Galicia, incubators established since 2000 had
generated 880 new companies employing 2,987 people or 0.3 per cent of all jobs. A
regional incubator in Aquitaine, having received €1.5m from two programmes, had created
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 61 LSE
117 firms, of which 50 had survived, and creating 400 employees. North East England has
seen several successful incubators – Silicon Alley in Newcastle creating 150 firms,
Sunderland BIC creating 530 companies and 3,823 jobs and Digital City on Teesside creating
132 new firms since 2008. Galicia supported management skills with the PIMEGA
programme making an investment of €23.4m in training 4,056 entrepreneurs and supported
1,226 companies in developing an improvement plan.
The effects of business advice have often been difficult to assess as the causal link between
the advice offered to the firm and changes made by the firm can be intangible. Some initial
business advice schemes worked on the basis of maximising the number of firms assisted,
with the level of bespoke advice and support for each firm being limited, and often best
characterised as awareness-raising. However, the link from such advice to increased GDP or
employment is tenuous, and it is hard to show how much firms made use of such advice. In
many cases the advice simply has no effect; in others, there may be deadweight as
assistance is given to firms that would have grown in any case. More intensive consultancy
offers better chances of both stimulating change in the business as well as being able to
measure the effects.
Overall, regions have tended to support enterprise projects, rather than aiming to foster a
holistic policy environment to achieve their objectives for enterprise – whether to increase
levels of entrepreneurship from relatively low levels, improve survival rates, or improve
quality and productivity of SMEs. North East England is one exception in that, since 2000,
there was a more systematic attempt to create a more supportive regional system for
entrepreneurship through a coordinated set of initiatives, steered by a regional strategy
which the ERDF complemented. This started to have an effect in terms of an increasing
firm birth rate during the 2000s but that has fallen back subsequently.
5.4.3 Structural change
All 15 regions had identified a need for the transformation of their industrial base as a
central element of their strategies and hence considerable activity and achievements are
concentrated under this thematic heading. This theme also overlaps and complements the
innovation and enterprise themes, with evidence of common strategies, as well as support
for related infrastructure and labour market initiatives.
Structural adjustment strategies can be broadly divided between firm-based and sectoral or
cluster-based approaches. Under firm-based approaches is support for specific firms or
types of firms, such as restructuring grants or foreign direct investment assistance. A
striking example of this approach was in Sachsen-Anhalt which devoted the bulk of its ERDF
funding to direct support for restructuring of enterprises such as privatised or newly
established private units. Over the whole period, €16.9 billion was spent on enterprise and
structural adjustment.
Cluster-based approaches tend to encompass a broad range of policies to promote cluster
growth including aid to individual firms, dedicated infrastructure and support and advice
aimed at the wider cluster. In some cases these were not identified as clusters strategies
per se, however programmes were oriented towards a particular cluster which received a
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 62 LSE
combination of support. In one form or another, they were adopted by nearly all regions
covering a mix of traditional sectors, new technology or knowledge-based sectors and
services such as tourism. Support for traditional sectors may have helped to slow decline
but usually did not produce employment growth, and in some cases traditional sectors saw
significant job losses despite assistance. For example, incentive programmes for the
traditional sectors in Norte had an initially positive effect on the footwear industry, which
saw growth to 2000, but all the target sectors declined after 2000 – textiles losing 28
percent of employment from 2000 to 2007, clothing losing 20 percent by 2007, footwear
losing 35.2 percent to 2011, and furniture losing 17 percent between 1998 and 2005. These
results may suggest that an alternative strategy could have produced better outcomes,
although in a region dominated by traditional sectors, there may not have been alternatives
capable of absorbing the funds and generating more jobs than those being lost in the
declining sectors.
Tourism was one of the most popular supported sectors, with all but one of the 15 regions
identifying it as a priority. In most regions, support was focused on visitor attractions
(sometimes in the private sector) or marketing, but in a few regions there was direct
subsidy for hotel operators: Burgenland, for example, saw the construction of spa and
leisure facilities with associated hotels; Campania supported hotel renovation or extensions
with its ROPs, and Galicia placed considerable emphasis on the conversion of rural
properties for tourist accommodation and spas with around 4,000 additional rooms
available. Basilicata focused on the conservation of its natural and cultural heritage and
then on the development of the tourism supply chains and marketing activities, as well as
investing in improved accommodation. ERDF support for some forms of basic service
infrastructure associated with tourism complemented some domestic policy initiatives, such
as the restoration of the Sassi di Matera in Basilicata’s second city, although regional actors
were critical of inadequate investment in external transport links.
Table 12 below illustrates the main cluster initiatives pursued by the regions with
indications of where they were successful. It also identifies cases where regions pursued
support for particular clusters albeit without being named as a specific cluster strategy.
Other major visitor attractions supported included some internationally iconic sites such as
Ancient Olympia in Dytiki Ellada, and Pompeii-Herculaneum in Campania, as well as many
new and local attractions, implemented with a view of expanding the tourist season and
the tourist market to more local visitors. In North East England, whilst the Sage music
centre and Baltic contemporary art gallery have attracted international acclaim, it has
been the clustering of tourist and cultural facilities in Newcastle that has had most impact
in enhancing the city’s position for city-break holidays, but also enhancing the wider
reputation of the city and achieving a cultural renaissance. Tourism was also encouraged
through the regeneration of historic towns and cities.
The effect on the growth in tourism was varied. In Burgenland the number of overnight
stays grew by almost 40 per cent from 1995 (compared to a national figure of under 10
percent), and the targeted thermal regions saw over 120 per cent growth. A reported 1,337
new jobs were created, although a significant number of these were filled by foreign
workers due to a shortage of local skills. Aquitaine saw a relative decline in tourism
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 63 LSE
activity initially, with some modest growth later, although it seems that tourism investment
has had little impact. Basilicata reported an increase of tourists to the region to 425,000
compared to a planned 293,000. However, not all efforts were successful; in Galicia,
despite the massive increase in rural tourist capacity, demand remained weak and room
occupancy in 2010 was only 16 percent.
The Algarve was the region most dominated by the tourism industry, and the ERDF
programmes reinforced that domination with considerable short term success. The region’s
GDP grew to the point that it moved out of the Convergence category, overtaking all
Portuguese regions except Lisbon. The region’s strategy delivered a combined approach
across almost all themes of support. Transport infrastructure helped access to the region
for tourists and movement between resorts, environmental investment improved basic
facilities but also supported eco-tourism, enterprise support assisted new hotels, and social
investment included the upgrading of hospitals which created a safety net for tourists, as
well as meeting the needs of local people.
The story on tourism is not clear cut though. In some regions and for some niche markets,
the ERDF investment helped to develop new tourism and stimulated growth which may not
otherwise have taken place. Selected transport investment would certainly have been
needed to cope with greater numbers – enlarged airports, new port facilities for cruise
ships, for example. Improved internal mobility within regions also helped spread the
benefits of tourism into rural areas which had been previously poorly accessible. However,
this all took place against the background of rapidly growing tourism industries, driven by
general economic growth, low-cost airlines, and easier booking of accommodation via the
internet. How much of the growth was purely down to the effects of ERDF is impossible to
disentangle as the effects were cumulative across all of these drivers. It is however likely
that many of these regions would have found it difficult to accommodate growth without
the assistance of the ERDF, and that growth would have been likely to be more
concentrated in existing tourism hotspots and, probably with a more negative
environmental impact.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 64 LSE
Table 12: Cluster policy approaches in the 15 regions
Region Cluster approaches Key clusters supported Areas of success
Algarve Tourism was the main focus of the regional programme and the region did not participate in national cluster initiatives
A focus on the tourism cluster ran across most thematic axes, but there was an additional small effort on the maritime cluster.
The region’s rapid growth has been driven by tourism, but whilst increasing the region’s GDP this has also made the region dangerously dependent on this cluster. There has been little growth in the maritime cluster yet.
Andalucía Some priority sectors
Food, electronics, ICT, and tourism
Failure to build a sustainable manufacturing sector, but some success in tourism diversification
Aquitaine Weak cluster policy Metals, agri-food, electrical engineering, paper and publishing, lasers, tourism
Particular success in lasers with 8500 jobs partly attributed to ERDF
Basilicata Tourism focus only Tourism Doubling of number of visitors
Burgenland Yes ICT; Electronics & control systems; Materials; Logistics; Bio-tech; Energy & environmental technologies; Optoelectronics; Creative enterprise; Tourism
Absence of critical mass so regarded as unsuccessful. Tourism was exception although not an ‘industrial cluster’ but a separate programme
Campania Clusters pursued under enterprise and innovation measures
Industrial/handicraft clusters (shoe, jewellery, leather, food industry and technology, textile and silk); tourism; biotechnology, transport systems, aerospace
Aerospace and biotechnology sectors particularly successful.
Dytiki Ellada Tourism only Tourism Significant growth in visitors (31%) and tourism GVA (83.5%)
Galicia No general cluster approach
Tourism supported as a priority sector
Significant growth in visitors with diversification away from the coast, although under-occupancy of rural hotels remains a problem.
Ireland Selected sectors or clusters were targeted
Target sectors included ICT, life sciences, food and tourism (which had its own OP)
Tourism grew dramatically, especially in Dublin. Many national flagship projects were ERDF funded.
Itä-Suomi Yes key clusters policy in 2000-2006
Targets for enterprise development included forestry, materials, tourism, measurement, energy, environment, welfare and pharmaceuticals
No data
Nord-Pas-de-Calais
Yes Health; ICT; technical textiles; transport, car manufacturing, tourism and culture, food processing
Some success in the car industry, transport and logistics, and since 2000 in ICTs
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Focus on clusters from 2000
New service sectors, knowledge economy, tourism creative industries
Some success in regional diversification into tourism, creative industries and ICT.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 65 LSE
Table 13: Cluster policy approaches in the 15 regions (continued)
Region Cluster approaches Key clusters supported Areas of success
Norte Weak cluster policies mainly targeted on traditional sectors
Textiles, footwear, tourism, engineering, maritime, health/biotech.
Some success with footwear and engineering.
North-East England
Cluster initiatives in late 1990s and revised focus from 2000
Many clusters in 1990s, but post-2000 focus on health, energy, process industries and ICT. Tourism runs through whole period.
Some growth in tourism. Growth in ICT and renewable energy in 2000s.
Sachsen-Anhalt
Focus both on traditional and new industries
Chemicals, food, mechanical engineering, automotive sector, renewable energy and on recycling
Some success with re-industrialisation in the industries mentioned, though the photovoltaic industries have recently lost enterprises and employees
5.4.4 Infrastructure
Infrastructure investment has also varied in form and scale across the 15 regions with a
strong orientation – and large allocations of resources - towards major transport networks,
water and basic and environmental infrastructure (e.g. sewage, depurators) and energy in
the Convergence and Phasing–in/out regions and a greater emphasis on industrial sites and
smaller scale transport projects in the RCE regions. This section deals mainly with transport
and broadband infrastructure, whilst water and other environmental infrastructure is
discussed under the environmental theme below.
The consequences for achievements are clear. In some regions, the main achievements of
whole programmes are focused on kilometres of roads, rail networks and other such major
infrastructures, whereas elsewhere the main achievement is in the construction of
industrial accommodation with targets for the numbers of jobs housed.
All regions tended to focus on infrastructure in the 1989-1993 period, but there is limited
published information on the achievements, although some regions provided some simple
output data such as length of roads constructed. The large infrastructure investments in
Convergence regions have been transformational, developing new highway networks,
improving large proportions of existing road networks, building new high speed rail lines or
enhancing metro systems, new water crossings and massive improvements in key airports
and ports. They have also been central to the intervention logics of successive programmes,
leading to fundamental improvements in facilities. The consequence of successive
programmes with large infrastructure components has been a cumulative improvement of
transport networks beyond that of isolated projects, enabling links across modes – providing
improved road and rail links into expanded ports, for example.
Yet there have also been failings, associated notably with the fact that large additional
investments in capital infrastructure create significant increases in operational costs which
may not be budgeted for, and such costs are excluded from the ERDF. In cases where
quality was perhaps sacrificed to complete projects within a programme period, remedial
work was subsequently needed. In Andalucía parts of the road network had to be rebuilt,
having been built quickly over difficult terrain. A rebuilt section of the A92 motorway was
repaired, then reconstructed, and then needed further repair following landslides. At
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 66 LSE
worst, some new infrastructure was left unused because of high operational costs – a
problem with some wastewater purification plants (again, in Andalucía). These issues were
less prevalent in the Objective 2/RCE regions, although some environmental or public realm
improvements from the earlier periods have become neglected.
As illustrations of these chequered results, Campania saw dramatic improvements in public
rail networks with the completion of the regional integrated network including the Naples
underground, local surface lines, and the connection to the high-speed rail network from
Rome to Salerno. Journey times to Rome been cut by 38 percent to 65 minutes, and local
commuting has also become much easier, thereby increasing access to employment. Most of
the 139 million passengers per year using the metro network are due to the new facilities
built with ERDF support. The consequences for local mobility have been huge - but they are
difficult to quantify, despite anecdotal evidence. However, as in Andalucía, budget cuts
have hit maintenance and operating costs in Campania which has led to reductions in use of
regional and local (metropolitan) railway lines as services have been cut.
A few regions made investments in ICT networks – Basilicata increased connection to ADSL
networks to 85 per cent of households compared with a planned level of 49 per cent, and
supported increased connection by public services. Campania also saw investments in
broadband to bring coverage close to 100 per cent through a mix of ADSL and 3G.
The regional benefits of these investments are varied according to the objectives: some
were aimed at facilitating greater trade, some facilitating tourist visitors, some helping to
better connect up communities within regions, some to improve quality of life.
In terms of trade, some of the road investments in Norte and Galicia (for example) were
intended to facilitate the flow of goods through Spain to major markets, although evidence
of this was lacking. However, port investments had led to increases in freight movements.
For instance, there was an increase in total freight in the Port of Leixões in Norte by 14
percent between 2004 and 2008, and a 30 percent increase in containerised freight. In
Andalucía, the traffic in containers grew from 1.4 million tonnes in 2000 to 2.3 million
tonnes in 2009. Similarly, airport investments saw large growth in passenger numbers in the
cases of, for example, Faro in Algarve where the number of passengers doubled. In
Andalucía major investments were made in Málaga airport where passenger numbers
increased from 6 million in 1995 to 13.6 million passengers in 2007, dropping back to 11.6
million in 2009 and rising again in 2011 to 12.8 million. However, in this latter case it has to
be questioned why the airport was enlarged to a total capacity of 30 million passengers per
year, in excess of the likely demand over the subsequent decade. Port developments have
also helped facilitate greater cruise traffic, with numbers up in Porto in 2012 by 81 percent
in the first year of the operation of a new cruise terminal. In Dytiki Ellada, the new port of
Katacolo is now taking 350,000 cruise passengers a year, mostly stopping off to visit Ancient
Olympia (a site also supported by ERDF investment).
The wider investment in new and improved roads, especially within regions, can be better
seen in reduced travel times, which have facilitated easier access from rural and suburban
locations to employment opportunities in urban areas, better access to hospitals and other
public services, and encouraged tourists to spread out from traditional resorts to more rural
areas. There is however a question as to whether improved travel times between regions is
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 67 LSE
always beneficial as shorter travel times can mean the peripheral area is more easily served
from a core region. Regions had generally not undertaken this form of detailed impact
assessment and improved travel infrastructure was regarded as generally positive. Certainly
though, the benefits of new metro/local integrated transport systems in Porto and Naples
were clear, simply in terms of the numbers of users which represents fewer road journeys
coupled with increased mobility within the city and shorter commutes. Improved safety was
also acknowledged in several regions, with reduced numbers of accidents on railways and
roads in Portugal as a result of the replacement of level crossings by bridges. In Naples a
reduction of CO2 emissions was also reported.
Table 14: Infrastructure support in the 15 regions
Region Importance (% of programme expenditure)
Key examples of infrastructure projects
Algarve 21% overall but varying from 47% to
15%
A22 East-West motorway and Guadiana bridge into Andalucía. System of dams and water distribution network and water sanitation and waste disposal.
Andalucía 51%, reducing over time
Development of main highway network
High speed rail network and connections
Airport and port expansions
Gas and electricity network upgrading
Aquitaine 19% Industrial parks, ports and airport development, ICT networks
Basilicata 50-60% Local road networks, water and sewerage systems, limited rail connections, broadband ICT networks
Burgenland 9% Water and sewerage networks, ICT and business parks
Campania 27% Regional public rail network, high speed train connections, Logistical hub at Nola-Marcianise, broadband networks
Dytiki Ellada 43% Rion-Antirion bridge, improvements of existing road networks, regional road network, motorway network, port upgrading
Galicia 61% Regional road network, ports, airports, limited rail network development
Ireland 53% but declining
Road construction and improvement, rail networks, airports and ports, water and wastewater treatment
Itä-Suomi Less than 10% Major roads, rail links and broadband networks
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 7+% Brownfield site conversion, multimodal logistic platforms, some local road and rail improvements
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Less than 5% Redevelopment of industrial land e.g. Phoenix site in Dortmund
Norte 15% overall but dropping
to zero in 2010
Considerable investment in roads including motorways to Lisbon and to Spain, modernisation of railways, new bridges over the Douro, Porto Underground, hospitals and schools, renovation of Porto Airport and Leixões Port
North-East England Dropping dramatically from 80% to
zero
Metro extension
Industrial site development
Sachsen-Anhalt 5% Industrial and training site development, tourism facilities, road improvements
Source: Case study reports.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 68 LSE
5.4.5 Labour market
Labour market projects have tended to be a minor element within ERDF programmes as
these issues were primarily met by ESF programmes, or ESF measures within multi-fund
programmes. However, some ERDF measures were targeted at labour market objectives,
beyond the general aim to create and support jobs across the mainstream ERDF
programmes. Typically, ERDF has been used to support the infrastructure needed to deliver
training, such as training centres, and has been measured in terms of the number and
floorspace of training establishments provided. For example, in Sachsen-Anhalt in 2000-
2006 ERDF was used to provide 6,596 new multimedia workplaces (workstations) in training
facilities. In Aquitaine, 19 vocational training centres received support for expansion and
100 were modernised in Nord-Pas-de-Calais. In Burgenland, ERDF contributed to the
development of the Burgenland University of Applied Sciences which has produced 3,000
graduates to date.
In all of these projects, the evaluation of the results is extremely limited as the immediate
consequences have been the housing of ESF-supported projects which then have their own
results. The main labour market benefits of the ERDF have come from the effects on job
creation and preservation in other thematic axes, such as enterprise or infrastructure.
5.4.6 Social cohesion
The social cohesion theme has often been the focus of ESF measures, especially in areas
where social cohesion is linked with access to labour markets, but the focus here is on
social cohesion projects within the ERDF. This involves various types of measure and project
– some concerned with basic public and social services such as education and health –
others focused more on urban or rural regeneration and community economic development.
The largest social cohesion programmes were concentrated in the Objective 1/Convergence
regions where basic public infrastructure provision was supported such as the building of
schools and hospitals. Achievements of this kind take the form of completed or improved
facilities leading to a better provision of public services – more patients treated, more
students staying in schools for longer. In Andalucía, three new hospitals were built with the
renovation of many others and also primary health centres. 103 new secondary schools and
34 primary schools were built, but also sports facilities such as 23 indoor pools and 18
sports centres as well as care centres and shelters for the homeless. Such scale of basic
public service provision was the case in several of the Convergence regions and has clear
social benefits as well as an economic impact. For example, enhancement of health care in
Basilicata led to a marked reduction in the number of people having to seek treatment
outside the region.
At the softer end of the scale were programmes for community economic development in
the Objective 2/RCE regions. Here, the nature of projects has been much wider and tended
to focus more on building social capital in deprived areas and helping to lay the foundations
for people to get back into work, often in the social enterprise sector. Community projects
have often been quite small, limited in some cases by the ability of the third sector to
provide matched funding, and hence achievements have been limited. A particular issue in
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 69 LSE
this theme has been whether such small projects have been effective at generating
achievements, although they have often been good at leveraging voluntary resources and
reaching groups that would not otherwise have been engaged in the Structural Funds.
5.4.7 Environment
Sustainability as a theme varies considerably in scale depending on the degree to which a
region needed to build or renovate its waste and water infrastructures. Hence, a major
focus of effort and achievements has been on the provision of clean water and installation
of waste-water treatment. Another environmental problem, addressed in several regions,
has been derelict or contaminated land, especially due to old industries such as mining and
steel. Other major elements of this theme include the preservation of natural
environments, through the designation of nature reserves, and investment in renewable
energy and CO2 reduction.
Investment in water resources was particularly important in the case study regions in Spain,
Italy, Ireland, Greece and Portugal, but also Sachsen-Anhalt and Itä-Suomi. All of these
regions had a need to upgrade water supply and sewage treatment to meet new standards,
but also just to ensure basic supply coverage of the population. In Dytiki Ellada, the
proportion of the population connected by sewerage networks increased over the period
from three to 100 per cent and in Basilicata and Campania both water and gas networks
have been built up through a combination of ERDF and domestic investments. In Galicia,
the population served by waste purification plants increased from 0.4 million to 3.4 million,
and the Ria de Vigo saw substantial reduction in water contamination. In Norte, only 51.6
per cent of the population was served by sewerage treatment in 2004, but the whole region
was served by 2007. However, problems of water pollution and waste management remain
in the case of Campania despite efforts of this kind.
By contrast, the major problem in the old industrial regions of Nordrhein-Westfalen, Nord-
Pas-de-Calais and North East England was derelict and polluted land, and hence a focus of
activity was on land reclamation. In Nordrhein-Westfalen, 1,000 hectares of waste land
were reclaimed and various former industrial sites were converted to a mix of natural,
leisure and business uses. In particular, the International Building Exhibition Emscher Park
initiated a collection of innovative reclamation projects including cultural facilities and
eco-buildings as internationally acclaimed demonstration sites for the restoration of old
industrial sites. North East England saw considerable progress, with the reduction of
derelict land from 5,900 hectares in 1988 to 2,660 hectares in 2007 and a reduction from
14.6 per cent of the estimated total for England to just 7.9 per cent. However, Nord-Pas-
de-Calais still accounts for half of all derelict land in France. In these regions the scale of
derelict land was considerable and in some cases increased during the study period, such
that choices had to be made as to how much of the derelict land should be restored, in
balance with the need to devote resources to other objectives.
Several regions also supported the creation of new national parks and nature reserves, or
environmental projects to protect natural environments. The results of such projects are
not amenable to quantification as they range from the protection of biodiversity to
enhancement of public spaces such as beaches and parks. Examples include:
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 70 LSE
regional parks and nature trails created and rivers cleaned-up in Nord-Pas-de-
Calais;
some 1,000 km of shoreline remediated in Galicia after the ‘Prestige’ oil spill,
resulting in clean beaches and recovery of flora and fauna, and benefits for tourism
and well as fishing and the environment; and
in North East England, beaches were also restored after decades of coal waste
dumping, and again these beaches are now clean enough to be designated as nature
reserves.
Finally, some regions supported the implementation of renewable energy and clean
technologies. Aquitaine made investments in biomass and solar energy as well as in energy
efficiency, as did Basilicata. The scale of achievements was often limited, though, and this
was not a major infrastructural priority in any of the regions.
The benefits of environmental improvement tended to be focused on quality of life,
particularly in terms of the local environment, with cleaner waterways and restored natural
areas, as well as the reduction in possible risks to the human population from pollution and
unsafe water supplies. But ‘green’ jobs were also created: for example in Andalucía it was
estimated that in 2000-2006, support for the protection and regeneration of the natural
environment helped to generate 34,790 jobs in construction, and to maintain 1,095 jobs.
5.4.8 Spatial or territorial cohesion
This final thematic axis is re-balancing development across the territory, both as an
overarching goal and through differential access to ERDF across the region. Examples of the
latter included Nordrhein-Westfalen and North East England having some excluded areas,
with differentiated EU eligibility in Nord-Pas-de-Calais (split between Objectives 1 and 2)
and Itä-Suomi (split between Objectives 5b and 6) and latterly Ireland. In most regions,
though, there were specific territorial development questions concerning the inequalities
within the region, whether between more and less developed areas, between urban and
rural areas, or between a core and periphery relating to access, or to a coastline. In
Campania, despite rural problems, some of the most significant problems were in urban
centres where an integrated approach was used to overcome the problems of segregated
neighbourhoods in cities such as Naples and Salerno, and restoring the heart of the cities.
Both Naples and Salerno became better places to live, and also became safer for tourists,
thereby transforming their image and creating an environment in which other forms of
investment could succeed. Whilst there were almost no specific measures identified as
being purely about territorial rebalancing rather than the other themes already discussed,
most regions could identify some form of impact on territorial questions arising from the
programmes as a whole.
In some cases, projects undertaken as part of other themes have had discernible results,
examples being:
in Campania, investments in transport and telecommunications, rural clusters,
tourism development and public services in the more rural hinterland of the region
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 71 LSE
have helped to stimulate development, despite most of the ERDF funding going to
the densely inhabited urban areas on the coast;
In Andalucía, efforts to support rural areas have been focused on tourism, with
support for tourist villages through new accommodation and promotion, diversifying
the tourism offer beyond the beaches and the historic cities, with some positive
results in the form of a growth in rural overnight stays from 180,430 in 2001 to
511,619 in 2011;
among the achievements in Basilicata was the success in connecting remote
mountain areas through internal road improvements;
rural areas of Galicia needed significant infrastructure investment, for example in
telecommunications, road and sanitation networks. There was also an ERDF local
fund for small village infrastructure projects, although aggregate results are
difficult to judge.
In some cases, the effects of the Structural Funds have been to exacerbate inequalities as
investments have been concentrated in more urban areas or areas which had greatest
potential to absorb funding. There may have been measures with the objectives of
offsetting such effects, but these are often smaller in scale – such as community
development actions. Itä-Suomi, for example, is experiencing continued drift of population
and economic activity towards the cities, as is Basilicata, with the shift away from rural
development towards thematic programmes in the ERDF facilitating this. In North East
England, it was felt that the move away from infrastructure spending towards innovation
and enterprise favoured the Tyneside conurbation whilst the former coalfield areas and
Tees Valley were less able to absorb the new priorities, leading to a widening of intra-
regional disparities. Similarly, in Burgenland, the relatively weaker south of the region has
not been able to reverse emigration trends or achieve significant catch-up despite receiving
the highest intensity of ERDF support. Its ERDF receipts were 141 per cent of the regional
average, compared with 83 per cent in the North of the region, which facilitated the
growth of new economic sectors such as renewable energy and tourism. Nord-Pas-de-Calais
also still has considerable internal disparities as some of the weaker areas such as Douai
failed to match the growth of Lille.
5.5 Conclusions
Although there are difficulties in assessing the aggregate achievements of programmes, it is
clear from the available data and the qualitative assessment that there have been
considerable areas of success, as well as disappointments. Achievements indicators have
improved over successive programme periods, with all programmes now using output
indicators and there is a growing use of results indicators, but many problems remain. In
part, these problems relate to the setting of appropriate targets against well-developed
intervention logics, but are also due to poor definition of indicators, weaknesses in
recording outputs and simplistic aggregation. The nature of programmes with diverse
interventions has also made the setting of consistent indicators difficult, both within and
between regions.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 72 LSE
While aggregate quantification of achievements is difficult or impossible at the level of the
region, let alone across regions, the qualitative assessments of achievements provide some
insights. In particular, they provide more detailed understanding of the development paths
pursed by individual regions, for example the shifts in innovation investment from building
up public research capacity to include business R&D, innovation support and science parks
as part of regional innovation strategies, or from generic business aid to improving the
business environment.
The case study research also provides some indication of ‘what works’. Some large
infrastructure, environmental and social cohesion investments in Convergence regions have
been transformational, in terms of improved accessibility, increased standard of living
through better housing, better quality healthcare, connection to water supply and sewage
networks, and environmental remediation (such as of derelict or contaminated land). Such
initiatives have been central to the intervention logics of successive programmes. By
contrast, the fragmentation of interventions (for example of innovation support) has
reduced achievements in economic development compared to the focusing of
research/innovation on key themes or centres. The value of a systemic or holistic approach
to interventions is evident in some regions, especially in the provision of enterprise
support, integrated territorial development schemes, (some) financial instruments and
cluster-based strategies such as investment in tourist and cultural facilities to promote
change in image and tourist flows.
Conversely, the assessment of achievements highlights problems with strategies, notably:
insufficient consideration given to the additionality of interventions and
deadweight (e.g. in enterprise support);
a lack of prioritisation of interventions, especially in the failure to concentrate
support to achieve critical mass;
insufficient clarity on the time periods over which certain interventions can be
expected to be effective and yield results - the long term benefits of certain kinds
of intervention (e.g. university investment) are elusive in the absence of linkages
with other aspects of economic development;
the balance between public and private sector investment at different stages of
economic development strategy – particularly an initial emphasis on public
investment for innovation which was only later followed by support for innovation
in industry;
the degree of sustainability of interventions, in terms of funding e.g.
underutilisation or over-expensive maintenance costs of physical infrastructure,
underestimated operational costs of investment in cultural facilities;
inadequate consideration of the appropriate scale of investment, especially with
regard to community development projects or renewable energy initiatives; and
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 73 LSE
insufficient attention to the spatial or territorial cohesion of regions – the spatial
concentration of investment (often associated with scope for spending funds) has
widened disparities or inequality in several regions.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 74 LSE
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 75 LSE
6. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COHESION POLICY PROGRAMMES
For any programme to be effective, the outputs and results that flow from it have to fulfil
the objectives set when the programme was formulated. Objectives may be explicitly set
out in programme strategies, possibly with specific targets for outputs, but are often also
implicit and therefore have to be imputed. For this study, effectiveness is defined as the
extent to which programme objectives were achieved, distinguishing, where relevant,
between explicit objectives stated in programme documents and those imputed by the
research team. Effectiveness can be assessed both by looking at the achievements in
relation to the overarching goals of programmes and, bottom-up, by appraising the targets
relating to specific measures and/or priorities.
The following chapter draws together the results of the analysis of effectiveness. It begins
by reviewing the challenges associated with analysing effectiveness. It then presents the
results of the overall analysis of effectiveness across the whole study period, and by period
and thematic axis. Subsequently, the chapter discusses effectiveness at programme and
measure levels based on the assessments made by the case study teams.
6.1 Analysing effectiveness
In examining 15 regions over four programme periods, and often with several parallel
programmes in each period, there is a natural expectation that effectiveness would vary
greatly. The variety of regions, programmes and contexts mean it is likely that some will be
successful and some will have experienced considerable problems. Because no simple
conclusion could be reached that programmes have been generally effective or not, this
section focuses more on the conditions under which effectiveness has been achieved or not,
and what lessons can be learned on how to improve effectiveness in future.
Effectiveness can be judged at several different levels and in terms of different forms of
intervention.
Programmes have overarching or programme level objectives, usually set as a small
number of overall goals which may be a mix of qualitative and quantitative
objectives. These might be as generic as improving the quality of life or much more
precise, such as creating a specified number of jobs.
Within programmes there are usually objectives and targets for specific measures or
themes, which again may be a mix of qualitative and quantitative objectives. Here
a measure may have a greater range of targets depending on the variety of actions
anticipated.
At the level of individual projects, there are objectives which will be expected to
contribute to measure objectives, but may include additional objectives not
anticipated in the original programme.
However, the scope for assessing programme achievements is constrained by data
availability. Among the problems identified were: vague or unspecified objectives, with
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 76 LSE
only imprecise targets; a propensity to change targets as programmes evolved, with little
information on what had been attained or why the target had changed; and
incompatibilities between objectives that rendered intervention logics hard to identify. A
common problem in the 1989-1993 period, and for some regions in subsequent periods, is
that the overall programme objectives (and sometimes measure objectives also) were not
measureable, with a lack of clear targets, benchmarks or appropriate measurement
indicators (see also the earlier discussion in Chapter 3 as to whether objectives were
SMART). Further, particularly in the 1990s, monitoring data were incomplete and often of
questionable quality, as already discussed.
6.2 Overall effectiveness of intervention across 15 regions, 1989-present
A first exercise makes use of ordinal correlations to explore whether there is a ‘pair-wise’
correspondence between the objectives and achievements of the programmes in the 15
regions over the period 1989-present. This relatively simple statistical technique has been
employed to translate the qualitative assessments made by the case study teams into
comparative quantitative findings across the 15 regions. For each region, achievements,
objectives and needs were assessed by regional research teams on an ordinal scale for each
of the eight thematic axes. The teams were asked to rate objectives on a five-point scale
from those that were a very high priority to those which were not a priority. Similarly,
achievements were ranked from very high to very low. It should be noted that because
these are the judgements of the teams, based on the mix of research they conducted,
there will inevitably be a degree of arbitrariness about the scores assigned. Nevertheless,
with caveats, the exercise provides a worthwhile overview about effectiveness.
In essence, if there is a positive and statistically significant ordinal correlation this suggests
that the policy intervention can be judged to be effective, whether for the programme
overall or in the respective thematic axis of intervention. Thus, if objectives are assessed
to be a high priority, and achievements are also assessed as high, there will be a high
ordinal correlation which indicates strong effectiveness. By contrast, if one of the pairs is
rated as ‘high’ and the other is rated as ‘low’, the ordinal correlation will signal
ineffectiveness. In particular, if the priority is low, but the achievement is high, this is still
to be welcomed, but means that what the programme is achieving is not central to its
objectives. Effectiveness therefore has to be interpreted as the degree to which high
priority objectives are met, and should not be confused with other possible interpretations
such as value-for money. In this exercise, all axes are treated as being of equal
significance, which means that the aggregate assessment of effectiveness at a programme
level is not sensitive to the balance of expenditure across thematic axes.
The findings of this analysis suggest that, overall, the regional experts judged the
programmes to have been effective (see Table 15). Starting with the whole sample there is
a high, positive and statistically significant correlation between the views on achievements
and the imputed objectives for all the axes, assessed for the full 23year period, 1989-2012.
The correlations are also positive and significant for all the axes in the individual
programme periods, albeit somewhat lower, though still significant, for the incomplete
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 77 LSE
2007-2013 period. Several of the case studies reported a degree of convergence or, at
least, the arresting of relative decline (North-East England and Burgenland).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 78 LSE
Table 15: Relationship between achievements and objectives (ordinal correlation)
1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013 All periods
Number of obs 104
120
120
120
120
All thematic axes Spearman's rho 0.672
0.421
0.405
0.193
0.518 Prob > |t| 0 *** 0 *** 0 *** 0.0348 ** 0 ***
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Enterprise Spearman's rho 0.490
0.093
0.250
0.268
0.369 Prob > |t| 0.0894 * 0.7406
0.3692
0.3348
0.1754
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Structural adjustment Spearman's rho 0.597
0.345
0.320
0.133
0.791
Prob > |t| 0.0312 ** 0.2077
0.2456
0.6374
0.0004 ***
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Innovation Spearman's rho 0.325
0.106
-0.321
-0.104
0.392
Prob > |t| 0.2784
0.708
0.2431
0.7129
0.1488
Environmental sustainability
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Spearman's rho 0.852
0.653
0.717
0.128
0.675
Prob > |t| 0.0002 *** 0.0083 *** 0.0026 *** 0.6495
0.0058 ***
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Labour market Spearman's rho 0.613
0.320
0.183
0.144
0.168
Prob > |t| 0.0259 ** 0.2456
0.5145
0.6094
0.5489
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Social inclusions Spearman's rho 0.760
0.608
0.095
-0.309
0.110
Prob > |t| 0.0026 *** 0.0163 ** 0.736
0.2626
0.697
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Spatial Cohesion Spearman's rho 0.531
0.376
0.375
0.595
0.381
Prob > |t| 0.0616 * 0.1667
0.1681
0.0192 ** 0.1618
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Infrastructure Spearman's rho 0.598
0.138
0.595
0.127
0.716 Prob > |t| 0.0307 ** 0.625
0.0193 ** 0.6534
0.0027 ***
Source: Elaborations on data collected by the case study team for this project.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 79 LSE
Effectiveness is considered to have been especially high in the 1989-93 period, in which it is
positive and significant for seven out of the eight thematic axes taken individually. In this
period, although the monitoring of outputs was poor, many regions prioritised
infrastructure and achievements were clearly observable. It is therefore, pragmatically
easier to measure effectiveness where the objectives are physical (such as in Andalucía and
Galicia in which considerable effort went into improving transport infrastructure). The
exception is the innovation axis, where the correlation is positive but statistically
insignificant.
Environmental sustainability is the thematic axis with the greatest perceived effectiveness,
as shown by the high, positive and significant correlations in periods 1989-1993, 1994-1999
and 2000-2006. The correlation is also positive in 1994-1999 for social cohesion, while for
regional infrastructural endowment the effectiveness is very high in 2000-2006 and for
spatial distribution of economic activity within the region, it peaks in 2007-2013.
Nevertheless, some regions, such as Burgenland were not effective in reducing intra-
regional disparities. It is also noteworthy that there is no theme or period with a
statistically significant negative correlation, meaning that there have been no significant
backwash effects in any particular thematic axis or period.
6.3 Effectiveness at programme level
A second way of looking at programme effectiveness is to examine individual regions. The
assessment in the following two sections concentrates on programme-level and measure-
level objectives, with emphasis on what makes the difference in the achievement of
objectives. The starting point is again the synthesis of the qualitative assessments
conducted by the 15 case study teams of how effectively programme objectives were
achieved.
A particular aim of this synthesis is to identify whether there are specific regional issues or
types of interventions which detracted from effectiveness. As there are regions with
different levels of development, and with different levels of complexity and scale of
Structural Funds programmes, systematic differences in effectiveness might be expected.
For example, are small, focused programmes more likely to achieve their objectives than
large complex programmes addressing diverse objectives? The thematic analysis of
achievements also presents opportunities to examine the effectiveness of different kinds of
intervention and to reach some conclusions as to whether the choice of intervention, and
decisions about how they are implemented, has consequences for effectiveness.
As anticipated, the case studies present a variety of judgements at programme level, with
some being broadly effective whilst others struggled to achieve their objectives. Table 16
below assesses the level of effectiveness at the regional scale across programmes,
indicating whether they achieved their objectives as set at programme level. This is by
necessity a crude indicator, but it seeks to differentiate those cases where the programmes
as a whole met the objectives set for them. Estimates are not made for the 2007-2013
period as it is too early yet to judge whether regions will achieve targets, although in most
regions the effect of the financial crisis has rendered initial objectives irrelevant.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 80 LSE
Table 16: Programme-level assessment of effectiveness
Region 1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006
Algarve 3 3 3
Andalucía 4 4 4
Aquitaine 3 3 3
Basilicata 3 3 3
Burgenland n.a. 3 4
Campania 2 3 2
Dytiki Ellada 2 3 4
Galicia 3 4
Ireland 4 4 1
Itä-Suomi n.a. - 4
Nord-Pas-de-Calais 3 3 3
Nordrhein-Westfalen - 3 1
Norte 1 1 1
North-East England - 1 4
Sachsen-Anhalt 5 1 5
Key 5 strongly exceeded objectives 2 under-performed against objectives 4 exceeded objectives 1 strongly under-performed against objectives 3 met objectives - insufficient data
For most regions and programme periods, the judgement of case study teams was that
programmes more or less achieved their objectives, although with many caveats as
indicated below. In a few cases it seems the programmes exceeded their objectives, such
as in Sachsen-Anhalt (which focused on job creation and significantly exceeded its targets
in two of the periods) and Ireland (which also exceeded objectives during the 1990s, but
missed its targets in the 2000-2006 programme).
Several regions had at least one ‘bad’ period when objectives were not realised, again
often due to over-ambitious objectives, and a small group of regions had a poor
performance overall. In some regions, objectives were set at over-ambitious levels and as a
consequence were not achieved. North East England set very ambitious objectives during
the late 1990s aiming to create large numbers of new jobs and halt GDP divergence with
the rest of the United Kingdom, yet it was unable to do this. Similarly, Burgenland sought
to spread economic development to the relatively disadvantaged South of the region, but
managed only to stabilise disparities, while the Basilicata aims of unifying the territory
proved to be overly optimistic. In part, this was a weakness in the logic of the intervention
in that many of the funded projects would be unable to deliver results in the short term,
but partly also reflected unrealistic expectations. Importantly, and certainly in the earliest
programmes, the objectives were framed as aspirational, indicating the direction of travel,
rather than targets to be achieved over the lifetime of the programme. In the case of
Campania, the vagueness of objectives and lack of good information on achievements
makes it difficult to judge how well the objectives were met. However, given an underlying
implicit objective to overcome the backwardness of the regional socio-economic system,
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 81 LSE
the conclusion was that the programmes were ineffective: employment rates did not
improve during the period and the region’s economy slipped back relative to the rest of
Italy and the EU.
The table shows the shifts over time, with some regions showing improvements in meeting
targets and others seeing poorer performance. These changes do not necessarily reflect a
change in absolute achievements as the assessment is made against objectives which
themselves change. This may simply be because one region might have softened an
objective to make it more attainable, while another set more ambitious targets which were
less likely to be achieved. This is a general weakness of measures of effectiveness (as
defined for this study), as programmes operate within their own world and the setting of
objectives and targets can just as equally influence effectiveness as the outputs. Generally
regions became better at setting realistic objectives which were attainable, although this
was not the case in a number of regions – notably Norte and Campania - where
effectiveness was judged to be poor in all periods.
Quality of life was a particular issue in several regions – often portrayed as a key priority,
but rarely specified or quantified, highlighting problems of measurement of very general
objectives. In most cases, quality of life was indeed improved, at least for the users of new
infrastructures or the beneficiaries of enhanced public services or cultural facilities. Urban
and community regeneration also improved people’s lives. However, these reported
achievements have not necessarily contributed to the economic changes that were the core
objectives. As noted above, Norte, for example, struggled to meet its objectives across the
whole period, as these were heavily focused on modernisation, job creation and economic
growth, yet the region has seen rising unemployment throughout the period and a declining
economic position relative to Portugal. As a result, it not only failed to meet growth
objectives, but was also unable to prevent further relative decline.
6.4 Effectiveness at measure level
At a measure level, the variability of performance increases, with examples of highly
successful measures considerably exceeding objectives (at least as measured by targets),
and some which largely failed to achieve anything. What is perhaps more important than
documenting such variety is to explore the factors behind success and failure at a measure
level, given that it is the performance of such components that underscores the
achievement of programme level objectives.
There was a generally positive view of the effectiveness of objectives relating to different
forms of infrastructure across the regions. Objectives were met, although sometimes only
after successive rounds of investment spanning more than one programme period, and
infrastructure projects were well delivered and had a good impact on quality of life.
Clearly, regions were reasonably assured in their ability to deliver these kinds of projects,
although with some reservations. In Aquitaine, there was a concern that transport
infrastructures were under-used and hence had limited economic impact, with similar
issues in Nord-Pas-de-Calais and, to some extent, in Algarve, Norte, Andalucía and
Galicia. In Basilicata, for example, the interplay between multi-regional and national
Operational Programmes, on the one hand, and regional OPs, on the other, was
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 82 LSE
unsatisfactory, with the result that external transport connections continue to be a
problem.
Business parks also led to mixed results. Although, floorspace targets were attainable, the
jobs which followed were significantly delayed, often beyond the period of assessment of a
programme. Even if there were specific actions to encourage firms to move into new
accommodation, this would often be in a different programme to the development of the
land and construction of the buildings. Issues of quality also led to mixed results – in
Andalucía the rapid construction of roads led to subsequent need for repairs and
realignments in later periods, whilst in North East England ERDF support led to an
improvement in the overall quality of business accommodation, but this had a negative
effect on output levels due to higher unit costs. An implication is that assessments of the
effectiveness of physical investments – whether for public services or business development
– have to look beyond the delivery of the new facilities to include how they are used.
Structural adjustment activities and industrial modernisation were seen as more
problematic, often slow to yield results, reflecting the difficulties in changing from
established industries to new activities. In Campania, support was provided for industrial
modernisation but did not achieve its objectives – possibly due to the labour-replacing
effects of capital investment in manufacturing. Support allowed firms to remain in the
market (thus safeguarding jobs in the short/medium term), but it did not spur them to
become more competitive for the longer term. In several regions, emphasis was placed on
safeguarding jobs in industrial sectors when the long-term sustainability may be
questionable, even assuming the deadweight effect of such support is ignored. In
Nordrhein-Westfalen, programme authorities were reluctant to make radical changes in
approach that might have led to more rapid diversification and in Nord-Pas-de-Calais the
initial emphasis was to preserve existing industrial sectors, only later switching to support
for emerging industries. Such considerations had an impact on effectiveness depending on
whether safeguarded jobs or new jobs were set as the objective. A focus on new industries
might help achieve greater numbers of new jobs, but at the same time allow a more rapid
reduction in jobs in the declining sectors.
Tourism was an important target sector in most of the regions, as already noted in the
previous chapter, and several programmes achieved good effectiveness in that area.
Significant benefits were noted in Dytiki Ellada, Basilicata, Algarve, Andalucía and others.
North East England and Nord-Pas-de-Calais saw the benefits of tourism and cultural
investments as going beyond the immediate objectives to help change the external (and
internal) perception of the region to enhance its wider attractiveness for investment and
mobile people.
Innovation measures also experienced limited short-term effectiveness, but with an
expectation of more significant effects in the longer term, suggesting that looking at
whether objectives were met within the timespan of a single programme (or soon after it
ends) may give a misleadingly negative impression. Initial effects, especially where funding
was concentrated in the public sector, were often restricted to output measures only. For
example, the university sector might grow in line with the level of investment made into
university research, but wider growth of R&D and innovation in the private sector would be
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 83 LSE
slow to take place, if at all. This was reported in Sachsen-Anhalt, Andalucía and Nord-Pas-
de-Calais, while in Basilicata there were successes in establishing selected new research
facilities, such as a geodesic research laboratory, supported by domestic as well as ERDF
interventions, but limited diffusion to the economy as a whole. Better effectiveness was
achieved where innovation measures had a greater emphasis on support for the private
sector through knowledge exchange projects and the development of a more sophisticated
innovation system.
Similarly, with entrepreneurship, regions which had developed a good systemic approach to
supporting entrepreneurship, with a mix of policies including incubators, finance, training
and encouragement of a wider entrepreneurial culture, reported high effectiveness (North
East England, Sachsen-Anhalt, Aquitaine). Nord-Pas-de-Calais had less success with
entrepreneurship, although it seems to be improving in the most recent period.
Environmental measures had mixed results, with good effectiveness for land and water
reclamation projects, but limited success with clean technologies until most recently. Here,
it was clear that most regions had expertise in the restoration of derelict and polluted sites
and were able to deliver programmes in that field. But few were able to promote clean
technologies effectively in the absence of significant demand or newly established bodies
for technology development and knowledge exchange. There is, nevertheless, a positive
story to be told about preservation of natural assets in regions such as Basilicata and
Aquitaine.
Finally, experience was mixed for social, community and territorial development actions.
Conventional interventions such as urban regeneration schemes were generally effective
and met objectives, but some of the softer community measures struggled to achieve
targets, in part because the sheer diversity of activities did not easily translate into SMART
objectives.
6.5 Conclusions
The main conclusion from the qualitative assessments of achievements in relation to
objectives is that, overall, Cohesion policy intervention over the period 1989-present was
effective, but with variation by programme period, theme and region. Further, regions are
considered to have (mostly) improved their attainment of objectives; in 1989-1993, only six
regions were judged to have met or exceed objectives, for six others it was impossible to
make a judgement, and three others underperformed. By contrast, in the 2000-2006 period,
most regions met or exceeded their objectives.
With respect to specific areas of intervention, short-term effectiveness appears to be
higher for large-scale physical infrastructure, environmental improvements and local
business and innovation infrastructure. Regions had difficulty with areas such as structural
adjustment, business support, innovation and community development which required
strategies, systems and capacity. A further difficulty reflected in the overall assessment of
effectiveness was the coordination of measures into a coherent strategy.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 84 LSE
Most regions had good expertise in capital programmes and were able to set reasonable
objectives which were attainable and which were then delivered. However, in those regions
with strong infrastructure needs, there were absorption problems in being able to deliver so
much so quickly and in being able to guarantee maintenance of the finished schemes.
Business support was much more difficult both in setting objectives and meeting them and
an important success indicator was whether the strategy involved a well-designed systems
approach. Regions also had difficulties over structural adjustment in getting the right
balance of support for traditional sectors and emphasis on new activities as well as
anticipating the consequences of this balance for targets attached to the objectives.
Support for innovation often became focused on public R&D, especially in universities, and
successful business innovation depended on the development of an innovation support
system oriented to the needs of firms. Lastly, social and community activities were highly
problematic in delivery when not again tied to infrastructure for core public services such
as schools and hospitals.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 85 LSE
7. UTILITY
Whether or not programmes are effective in meeting their objectives, a broader and
arguably more fundamental evaluation question is whether they succeed in meeting the
needs of the region. For this study, the concept of ‘utility’ is interpreted as the extent to
which programmes led to results that are in line with ‘society's needs and the socio-
economic problems to be solved’, which may differ from the goals explicitly stated in the
programmes or which may not have been stated explicitly in the programmes. ‘Utility is a
very particular evaluation criterion insofar as it makes no reference to the official
objectives of the programme’ (European Commission, 2012, p.35). The concept of utility is
particularly useful where objectives are not explicitly defined or are poorly defined, or
when unforeseen effects are anticipated, but is also susceptible to differences of
interpretation, precisely because it is does not necessarily refer to stated goals.
As a consequence, utility can be seen holistically as whether or not Cohesion policy
fostered regional development in terms of economic growth, increases in employment, and
better social and environmental conditions. However the underlying needs can also be
regarded sectorally, so that utility can be judged in terms of improvement in a range of
determinants of regional development, such as innovation or accessibility. In either case,
the question is whether the needs of the region were met regardless of any strategy or
objectives set by the programme.
7.1 Analysing utility
For each of the regions, achievements were compared with a set of specific sectoral needs
of the region, as revealed by the assessments of regional case study teams regarding the
main thematic axes used in the study. This analysis asked what positive (or negative)
effects the programmes had on the region and how these related to the needs, regardless
of the objectives or targets of the programmes. An activity which failed to deliver against
its objectives may be ineffective, but if it still partly met the objective or delivered some
other benefits not specified in the objectives then it would still constitute utility. In this
analysis, the focus was on a set of thematic needs and achievements, rather than aggregate
changes such as GDP growth or employment.
As with the analysis of effectiveness, a first approach to assessing utility was to analyse
ordinal correlations between regional achievements and needs, again based on the
qualitative assessments provided by the case study teams Subsequent sections present a
more qualitative assessment of the nature of achievements in regions with differing
characteristics and a quantitative analysis of measures of regional performance.
Ordinal correlations between assessments of needs and achievements provide a broad-brush
view of the utility of ERDF policy, and are subject to the same caveats noted in relation to
effectiveness in the previous chapter. For utility, the regional research teams were asked
to score needs on a scale from ‘very high’ need to ‘very low’, recognising that although a
need may be present, it may matter much less than others for the development of the
region. For example, a dearth of basic infrastructure might be seen as a very high need in a
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 86 LSE
lagging region, whereas social cohesion is not. But as the level of infrastructure improves,
there may be an evolution of needs which brings social cohesion to the fore, while further
investments in infrastructure are less pressing.
For all periods and all axes taken together, there is a positive and statistically significant
correlation between needs and achievement, as assessed by the case study teams. Although
this correlation is not high, it implies that the policy has indeed been useful in meeting
regional needs over the long run. Utility is higher for the two first programme periods,
while for 2000-2006 the correlation is positive but not statistically significant and for 2007-
2013 there is no positive correlation, although it is probably too early to arrive at a firm
verdict because at the time of the research it was still incomplete.
Among the individual thematic axes, the regional assessments indicated maximum utility
for investment in regional infrastructure endowments, where regional needs were
accompanied by high achievements in the long run but also, in the shorter run, in the
programme periods 1989-1993 and 2000-2006. This finding is confirmed in several of the
case studies which note the improvement of accessibility as a key achievement (Andalucía
and Galicia), although continuing problems of accessibility were reported in the southern
part of Burgenland and in Basilicata where external connections have improved less than
intra-regional links. In Campania, the assessment is that its transport infrastructure is now
in line with or above national standards, although the case study also notes that it took a
long time to complete. A caveat in Campania is, though, that a lack of funding for running
and maintenance costs, expected to come from domestic sources, diminishes the utility.
For the enterprise and innovation axes, there is evidence of utility in the long run. Ireland
is a good example, where the case study team argues that there is a strong legacy in
research-based activities, although in Norte the findings are that entrepreneurial activity
shifted in focus from export activities with too many firms concentrating on non-tradable
sectors. Nevertheless, the Norte case study notes the emergence of some centres of
excellence and niche activities, despite the overall achievements falling short of
expectations. In Galicia, the research reaches a fairly sanguine conclusion about the
sectoral change, noting the emergence of new clusters and internationally competitive
firms.
For the social cohesion thematic axis utility is high in the first three programme periods but
significant only for the 1989-1993 period. There is no theme and no period for which there
is a significant negative correlation. Some of the case studies do make clear, however, that
much greater emphasis was placed on some themes during different periods. In Aquitaine,
for instance, an early focus on jobs and SMEs was considered to be at the expense of other
needs, such as for internationalisation of the economy, but later programmes at least partly
compensated. In the earlier programmes, the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region was dominated by
efforts to cope with the decline of major staple industries.
This analysis is not, however, able to examine aggregate utility, which might be seen in
terms of overall convergence with the EU average in GDP and employment, as assessments
were only provided at the thematic axis scale. Regions in many cases saw utility at a
thematic level, where specific needs were met (accessibility improved, levels of innovation
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 87 LSE
increased, environmental problems were cleared up), but these improvements may not
have been sufficient in themselves to narrow the gap with the EU average in terms of
economic performance as measured by standard macroeconomic variables.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 88 LSE
Table 17: Relationship between needs and achievements (ordinal correlation)
1989-1993 1994-1999 2000-2006 2007-2013 All periods
Number of obs 104
120
120
120
120
All thematic axes Spearman's rho 0.345
0.195
0.120
-0.105
0.204
Prob > |t| 0.0003 *** 0.0332 ** 0.1929
0.254
0.0255 **
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Enterprise Spearman's rho -0.009
0.384
0.039
-0.341
0.523
Prob > |t| 0.9757
0.1571
0.8901
0.2132
0.0454 **
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Structural adjustment Spearman's rho 0.440
-0.061
0.112
0.138
0.141
Prob > |t| 0.1323
0.8295
0.6909
0.6231
0.6163
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Innovation Spearman's rho -0.111
-0.147
-0.206
0.125
0.464
Prob > |t| 0.7178
0.6014
0.4621
0.6585
0.0811 *
Environmental
sustainability
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Spearman's rho 0.410
0.356
0.381
-0.018
0.172
Prob > |t| 0.1637
0.1925
0.1616
0.9482
0.5394
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Labour market Spearman's rho -0.078
0.000
0.137
0.325
0.065
Prob > |t| 0.7998
1
0.6273
0.2368
0.8181
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Social inclusion Spearman's rho 0.576
0.420
0.402
-0.218
0.166
Prob > |t| 0.0392 ** 0.1194
0.1377
0.4346
0.5541
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Spatial Cohesion Spearman's rho 0.406
0.038
-0.161
-0.378
-0.148
Prob > |t| 0.1685
0.8938
0.5672
0.165
0.5979
Number of obs 13
15
15
15
15
Infrastructure Spearman's rho 0.479
0.297
0.466
-0.021
0.596
Prob > |t| 0.0979 * 0.2819
0.0798 * 0.9423
0.019 **
Source: Elaborations on data by the case study team for this project.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 89 LSE
7.2 Qualitative assessment of utility
The following assessment of how Cohesion policy funding contributed to overall regional
development is organised by the categorisation of funding regime in each of the regions.
7.2.1 Objective 1/Convergence regions
The first group comprised regions characterised by major underdevelopment and deficits in
all indicators, from basic infrastructure and services to human resource skills, often
compounded by peripherality (national or European) or significant internal disparities, and
which were in the most assisted category (Objective 1 or Convergence) throughout the
whole study period. These comprised Dytiki Ellada, Campania, Norte, Andalucía, Galicia
and Sachsen-Anhalt. The intervention logic in this group of regions has tended to be to
favour physical investments in the earlier programme periods, then to increase the
emphasis on softer interventions. Although the relative emphases have inevitably varied
among the group, the underlying logic has been one of wide-ranging transformation.
A common theme across five of the regions (the exception being Sachsen-Anhalt) is a
preponderance of infrastructure investment and support for quality of life improvements,
and across all these regions these needs have been met to some degree. However, the
regions also needed to stimulate economic development, transform the industrial base and
promote innovation and enterprise. These needs were not always highly prioritised in
programme objectives, and investments in infrastructure have not led to the economic
stimuli that were anticipated. Utility has thus been quite low in economic terms across
these regions, regarding enterprise, innovation, and structural change. These regions have
not benefited from the kinds of exogenous growth opportunities which Ireland and, to a
lesser extent, the Algarve experienced (both in the group of regions which moved out of
Objective 1 status – see next section), and the effort devoted to endogenous economic
development has been too small compared with the scale of the challenge.
Nevertheless, the enhancement of infrastructure has tended to bring more benefit to the
wider public, through improved public transport networks and roads and personal services
(education, health, water quality), as well as some environmental improvements. To this
extent, ERDF investment in these regions has a clear utility in meeting some of the needs of
the population for improvements in the quality of life, but it has been insufficient to
establish self-sustaining growth. As a result, the economic achievements are more fragile
and have not provided an adequate foundation for a response to the current downturn.
Sachsen-Anhalt pursued a different strategy, focused on enterprise and restructuring and
has had some success with capital investment in existing industry. In the analysis in Chapter
2, Sachsen-Anhalt was notable for very high productivity growth linked with falling
employment as the old industries were partially replaced with new, higher value added
activity. This has stabilised decline and restored growth, but there is still recognition that
further productivity improvement is needed based on innovation. Norte and Campania also
experienced the decline of traditional industries, but have struggled either to upgrade
those industries or to develop new growth industries. The heavy focus on infrastructure and
social needs has been insufficient to stimulate wider economic growth.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 90 LSE
Galicia experienced notable improvement in productivity, in part through the use of capital
investment aids as well as better access to markets, yet this has not been transformative,
and innovation performance is still weak. Support for innovation has started to develop an
innovation support system, which was previously absent, so that despite limited results
there was some utility in beginning what is likely to be a long process of upgrading.
Tourism has been seen as a growth opportunity by all of these regions, but with relatively
limited success. In most cases some of the transport infrastructure has had a strong tourism
orientation and all have invested in tourism attractions and new niche strategies. Andalucía
was perhaps the only one of the six regions with a significant mainstream tourism profile at
the outset, but whilst all have had some successes, this has not been sufficient to create a
major new source of growth.
Some consideration must also be given as to whether the large investments by the ERDF and
Cohesion Fund had some negative utility in these regions by contributing to the conditions
of the current crisis. In some of the regions in this group, notably Campania and Andalucía,
the negative consequences are clearer as costly infrastructure has been put in place
without the underlying growth in a tax base to maintain and make effective use of it.
Choices therefore have had to be made between on-going public expenditure or austerity
cuts, a dilemma which risks undermining the previous strategy.
7.2.2 Regions which have phased out of Objective 1 status
The regions which had Objective 1 status but have phased out as a result of improvements
in relative GDP performance are all by definition regions which have seen significant
positive change, whether or not this was the consequence of Cohesion policy. Six of the
study regions were in this category: Burgenland, Itä-Suomi, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Ireland,
Basilicata and Algarve, but in each case their story is different. Ireland, Basilicata and
Algarve were all classic underdeveloped regions with poor performance in a wide range of
indicators, although Ireland’s status as a small country was distinctive and afforded
particular advantages. Nord-Pas-de-Calais was more of a typical industrial decline region
which had partly fallen into Objective 1 status as a result of localised decline – its problems
were more specific. Burgenland and Itä-Suomi were predominantly rural regions,
peripheral within their respective Member States (and at that time relative to the EU),
facing agricultural modernisation and economic diversification. For these regions, the
intervention logic combined efforts to improve connectivity with the promotion of new
forms of activity, while managing the evolution of traditional activities.
The region which stands out as having achieved transformational change is Ireland
(notwithstanding the difficulties encountered since 2008), whilst the others continue to
experience difficulties to varying degrees. Algarve and Basilicata both also moved out of
the Convergence category in 2007 to Phasing-out status, although still experiencing
structural problems and specific challenges which have been exacerbated by the current
crisis. Ireland is very much the success story of the last twenty years, rising from Objective
1 status to well above the EU averages, posing the question of much of this was due to
Cohesion policy. During the 1990s, the ERDF and Cohesion Fund provided substantial new
investment in historically neglected infrastructure such as transport and water, whilst also
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 91 LSE
boosting research and innovation facilities dramatically. This investment helped to support
endogenous development but, more importantly, exogenous growth through the attraction
of foreign direct investment and can be judged to have responded to the country’s needs.
The high level of funding during the 1990s coincided with the ‘Celtic tiger’ period of rapid
real growth. Clearly, several other drivers of change were influential, notably the high
levels of foreign direct investment, but Cohesion policy facilitated the ability to respond to
those opportunities whilst also modernising the indigenous economy (Honohan, 1997). After
2000, ERDF expenditure dropped as Ireland moved out of the Objective 1 category, but
ERDF interventions continue to make a positive contribution to development albeit in a
more focused way within a national strategy.
Algarve has also seen significant improvement as a result of the Structural Funds, albeit
less dramatically than Ireland. Infrastructure and urban regeneration has facilitated the
development of a modern tourism-based economy, with a marked improvement of
economic indicators as well as the quality of life. Support for business has also contributed
to this development, but was insufficient to stimulate other export-oriented industries.
Human capital was strengthened - with the growth of the university and the development
of R&D playing an important part - but the region lacks strong demand for enhanced skills
and research. Despite these improvements, which constitute a degree of utility, the region
remains overly dependent on tourism and has not achieved a sufficient degree of economic
diversification. Other regions in this group also experienced significant improvements in
tourism, such as for example Burgenland, or Basilicata, where natural assets and cultural
heritage became a source of competitive advantage as a result of Cohesion policy funding.
Itä-Suomi saw mixed results in innovation and enterprise and partial utility, but its
performance nationally was overshadowed by the dramatic growth in other regions; the
peripherality of the region nationally continues to be a difficulty.
Problems can arise in sustaining improvements or in moving beyond what has already been
attained. Some of the gains in Basilicata were exposed as fragile when the crisis struck in
2008/9. Even in Ireland, the combination of high investment in infrastructure and the
growth of expenditure in areas such as public R&D and universities, driven initially by the
ERDF, led to increases in recurrent public expenditure which were difficult to sustain as tax
revenues fell during the crisis. The construction boom of the early 2000s, which was a
major contributor to the crisis in Ireland was partly stimulated by road investment
supported by the Cohesion Fund, and costs were exacerbated by rising land and labour
rates. Overall though, even taking into account the fall in GDP since the crisis, Ireland is in
a much stronger position now than it was in 1989.
An enduring issue is the consequences of a growing focus on knowledge based economic
strategies for the territorial balance within each of the regions. All of these regions had
either significant rural areas or internal disparities. The focus on innovation has reinforced
the position of the more urban settlements, exacerbating internal territorial imbalances in
Itä-Suomi. This problem, also recognised in some of the other regions, is a conundrum for
regions as economic transformation seems to require agglomeration economies which are
difficult to replicate in more rural locations. Whilst sectors such as tourism can be
developed in the more rural areas, and these six regions have had some success in this, the
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 92 LSE
scope for higher value-added is limited in comparison with the urban areas. The
competitive environment of tourism drives down profitability and the typical quality of jobs
cannot compare with innovation-intensive sectors which concentrate in the urban cores.
Achieving maximum utility at a regional scale may require the acceptance of continued
territorial disparities, and the knowledge that policy is one of the causes.
7.2.3 Objective 2/RCE regions
The third group of regions were those typified by economic restructuring dominated by
large, declining traditional industries. Nordrhein-Westfalen and North East England were
prototypical examples of this kind of region, whilst Aquitaine had an initially small but
expanding Objective 2 area coupled with extensive Objective 5b designation. The
intervention logic for these regions has been one of shifting from an outdated industrial
model which had left acute social and environmental legacy problems to embrace new
activities and socio-economic structures. These regions mainly faced three broad
challenges: to rehabilitate the environment in areas affected by the closure of traditional
industries; to convert the economic base to new knowledge-based activities; and to address
the social consequences of deindustrialisation. Aquitaine, and to some extent, North East
England also experienced some problems of rural disadvantage and peripherality.
On the first of these challenges, there was considerable success and a high level of utility.
Environmental improvement and infrastructure projects, focusing on the reclamation of
contaminated and derelict land, had considerable success leading to the restoration either
as green space or re-use for business or residential purposes. Aquitaine made efforts to
revitalise urban centres. Nordrhein-Westfalen and North East England had severe
problems of derelict land, particularly from mining and steelmaking, and these sites had
symbolic significance - both negatively as highly visible indicators of industrial decline, but
also more positively as icons of regional identity. Both regions were able to gain high utility
from the revalorisation of this land, the removal of ecological problems, the bolstering of
cultural heritage, and the change in the regional image to one that was more attractive for
new investment and even tourism. The scale of these problems was beyond the resources of
local and regional actors and required a coordinated effort involving national government
and the Structural Funds. However, the expertise for these types of intervention was well-
established, and projects were typically well managed and at times innovative, and high
utility was achieved where there was strong experience and expertise.
In meeting the needs of the conversion of the economic base, experiences were more
mixed, although improving over the programme periods. Again, Nordrhein-Westfalen, and
North East England faced similar problems due to the rationalisation of many larger
employers and knock-on effects across the supply chain, coupled with weak
entrepreneurship and innovation, and an under-representation of newer growth sectors.
During the 1990s, the levels of utility were weak in Nordrhein-Westfalen and North East
England as insufficient support was channelled to a broad-based conversion process.
Support was given to some traditional sectors and larger firms, or to support foreign direct
investment, rather than endogenous development. Support for entrepreneurship and
innovation commenced during this period, but was small in scale and scope and
insufficiently systemic in nature.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 93 LSE
In the 2000s, there was evidence of increased utility in economic terms as the regions
began to develop more sophisticated systems to support entrepreneurship and innovation,
with strong encouragement from the ERDF. New firm formation and growth improved in
North East England as the region developed more incubator capacity, reinforced by better
links with universities and venture capital, as well as by the promotion of a more
entrepreneurial culture. Better targeting of support for growth clusters and sectors also
developed in the 2000s, including innovation programmes. Tourism was important in all
three regions, but with mixed success. However, considering the extreme negative image of
earlier years for the two industrial regions and the link to investor optimism, this was
another theme with strong utility. Similarly, the creative and cultural industries have
developed strongly, especially in Nordrhein-Westfalen and North East England. Aquitaine
also experienced limited success in the transformation of the SME base, but has been able
to support employment well.
Perhaps the weakest area of utility for these four regions is in the social challenges. One of
the consequences of deindustrialisation has been the concentration of disadvantage in
particular communities, with high levels of unemployment, health and social disadvantage,
and in some cases poor housing and built environment. In Aquitaine, some rural
communities fared less well than the favoured urban centres, highlighting problems of
spatial imbalance. Measures to address these issues have been modest in nature, and, as
reported above, the effectiveness has often been limited, as indeed has the utility. Here
the scale of resources available under the ERDF has been small relative to the scale of the
problem, and it is questionable whether it has been worthwhile. Aquitaine, North East
England and Nordrhein-Westfalen all had relatively small-scale ERDF programmes17,
compared with other regions in the study and especially measured relative to regional GDP,
limiting their ability to influence the region, and it is perhaps particularly in the social area
where the resources have been too limited and have had little impact.
7.3 Utility of interventions: quantitative assessments for selected indicators
The utility of ERDF intervention can, in a manner similar to the analysis of economic
performance described in the previous section, also be summarised in charts focusing on
indicators which capture different facets of needs. Due to the availability of longer than
average time series, three indicators have been chosen – unemployment, patents (as a
measure of the results of R&D, and tourism - each related to at least one of the eight axes
of the project. They are quite general and, as such, are influenced by more than one axis.
These indicators can be interpreted as results of policy interventions, not being the direct
output of any measure or axis. In Figure 9 (unemployment), Figure 10 (patents) and Figure
11 (tourism) appended to this chapter, needs are shown on the horizontal axis in terms of
regional endowment of the indicator at the beginning of the programme period, while
achievement is measured on the vertical axis as the change in the variable over the
17 Whilst the most recent Nordrhein-Westfalen ERDF programme is quite large in financial terms, this covers the whole of a very large region with over three times the population of the former objective 2 area of earlier programmes.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 94 LSE
programme period. To allow for effects that stem from policies unrelated to Cohesion
policy, the amount of expenditure in the relevant axes is represented through the size of
the circles. In addition, to correct for the impact of national effects and macro-cycles, all
values are depicted relative to the country average, and the horizontal axis represents the
differential with respect to the country at the beginning of the period, while the vertical
axis represents the absolute change in this differential between the beginning and the end
of the period. These adjustments are still insufficient to provide any counterfactual
evidence, but they are enough to make observations comparable across regions belonging
to different countries. Due to data availability problems, the analyses are confined to the
1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programme periods.
7.3.1 Unemployment
The unemployment rate is one of the principal direct targets of labour market expenditure,
but is also indirectly influenced by any other expenditure targeting the regional economy,
including enterprise and structural adjustment. Unemployment rates in most of the 15
regions were well above the respective national average, signalling a high need, especially
in Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE0), Andalucía (ES61) and Campania (ITF3), whose differentials from
the national averages were above 12 percent.
Only two regions achieved significant reductions in unemployment gaps relative to their
national rates. Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE0) managed to reduce its differential by more than
eight points, interestingly despite any investment directly targeting the labour market,
albeit with very high investment targeting structural adjustment and, to a lesser extent,
enterprise. The other was Andalucía (ES61), which was able to reduce its differential by
almost four points, with ERDF support balanced between the labour market and structural
adjustment. However this has not been sustainable in the current crisis and unemployment
has risen rapidly again. In the other 13 regions there was little relative improvement, even
in Burgenland (AT11) which spent heavily on enterprise and structural adjustment, while
some regions went backwards. Nord-Pas-de-Calais, in which countering unemployment was
a core challenge, was unable to make any headway, a result that the case study report
attributes partly to limited success in some of the unemployment black-spots in the region,
whereas other centres enjoyed markedly better results. Local concentrations of
unemployment were also identified in Nordrhein-Westfalen as a continuing problem,
despite ERDF intervention.
The need to curb unemployment was especially prominent at the beginning of the 2000-
2006 programme period. Over the programme period 2000-2006, nine regions were able to
achieve a marked reduction in unemployment differentials, while two (Burgenland (AT11)
and Itä-Suomi (FI1D)) improved marginally. Moreover, the regions with the greatest needs
achieved the biggest gains, through investments in the labour market but also enterprise
and structural change, especially in the cases of Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE0), Basilicata (ITF5)
and Nord-Pas-de-Calais (FR30). By contrast, two regions which spent heavily on enterprise
and structural adjustment (Itä-Suomi (FI1D) and Burgenland (AT11)), but did not spend
significantly in the labour market directly, made no inroads into the gaps. Overall though
there was more improvement in this period of wider economic growth at a national and
international level, although the fragility of this growth is shown by the rising levels of
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 95 LSE
unemployment relative to the EU average for some of these regions since 2008. A sobering
judgement by the Campania case study team is that ‘the region continues to have the same
problems of poverty, unemployment, worklessness, hidden employment and organised
crime as it had two decades ago’.
7.3.2 Patents
Patents per million inhabitants is a proxy indicator for regional innovativeness, although it
is primarily a measurement of inventive activity in high technology sectors, rather than the
exploitation of ideas across a wider range of industries. Patents also tend to represent
product innovation to a greater extent than process improvements, and many forms of
organisational innovation are not eligible for patent protection. Consequently, the indicator
has limitations, but there are no other output indicators for innovation with comprehensive
spatial and temporal coverage. Some case studies, such as that of Aquitaine identified
major achievements in long-term innovation potential not necessarily captured by the
single indicator. Itä-Suomi, similarly, has benefited from a re-orientation of the economy
towards high-tech sectors, while in Andalucía the ERDF is credited with improving the
university sector. Because, as in section 7.3.1, the analysis is relative to the respective
national trends, the findings cannot directly be compared among the fifteen regions.
Finland and Germany have high rates of patenting, in contrast to southern Member States,
so that although individual regions may be below the national rates, they may still be high
relative to an EU average.
As Figure 10 shows, needs in terms of innovation were sizeable in 1994 for almost all
regions, which were in some cases around the national mean, in other cases lower than the
national mean and in other cases much lower. The case study regions in Austria, Germany
and Finland - countries relatively more innovative with respect to the EU – had especially
low scores relative to their national means. Moreover, almost all regions, to different
extents, performed badly in the period 1994-1999, since none of them was able to reduce
the differential with respect to their country. Direct expenditure on innovation (the red
circle) was comparatively lower than expenditure on enterprise and structural adjustment,
though larger in Burgenland (AT11), which however was not able to prevent it falling
further behind the Austrian average.
For a number of other regions, Campania (ITF3), North East England (UKC), Andalucía
(ES61), the expenditure in innovation was comparable to that on enterprise and structural
adjustment; these were regions characterized by some needs and a limited under-
achievement. The cases of Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE) and Itä-Suomi (FI1D) are interesting,
because they exhibited high relative needs at the beginning of the period, yet fell further
behind despite substantial expenditure in enterprise and, for Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE0),
structural adjustment, with much lower expenditure in innovation and R&D. Finally, three
regions (Norte (PT11), Algarve (PT15) and Dytiki Ellada (EL23)) were less disadvantaged
relative to their national mean at the beginning of the period and, despite the very low
investment in innovation, were able to avoid losing ground.
Due to the underperformance in the previous programme period, regional needs at the
beginning of the 2000-2006 period were comparatively larger (Figure 10b). In this period,
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 96 LSE
however, some regions were able to improve their relative position, though others
continued to lose ground. The Nord-Pas-de-Calais case study reports that ERDF pushed
innovation up the policy agenda, pointing to one mechanism that may explain these trends.
A similar conclusion is reached for both Nordrhein-Westfalen and Andalucía where ERDF is
credited with enhancing the regional innovation system.
Sachsen-Anhalt (DEE0), despite significant investment in innovation (and enterprise), was
unable to catch up but managed to lose little ground. Among the regions able to reduce
their gaps with national averages, Aquitaine (FR61) and North East England (UKC) were
characterised by low and balanced expenditure. Other regions with low and balanced
expenditure, however, lost some ground, as in the case of Basilicata (ITF5), Galicia (ES11)
and Andalucía (ES61). An enduring difficulty, illustrated in the case study of Galicia (where
business R&D increased from 0.2 percent of GDP in 2000 to 0.5 percent before the crisis in
2007), is that even where the R&D effort has increased with support from ERDF, it is from
low initial values and is still an order of magnitude lower than leading regions. In this
regard, it is noteworthy that Nordrhein-Westfalen (DEA) had little need to boost
innovation in 1994 and, after losing some ground, only little need in 2000, but in the period
2000-2006 this region had one of the lowest expenditures and lost more ground than any
other region.
7.3.3 Tourism
It is hard to affirm that there is a regional ‘need’ in relation to tourism, but there are
‘opportunities’ which could be exploited to improve the regional economic situation, and
especially important issue for regions with few other potential growth industries. The
indicator here is the nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments (by residents
and non-residents) relative to the resident population, normalised with respect to the
national mean to correct for national differences in the scale and cyclical movements of
the tourist industry. Expenditure on tourism is included in the structural adjustment axis,
but results can also be influenced by expenditure on infrastructure and on environmental
sustainability (see Figure 11).
Only Algarve and Andalucía, among the 15 regions, could be regarded as major tourism
regions in 1994, indicating unexploited opportunities elsewhere. Burgenland (AT11) made
sizeable gains despite being the least tourism-dependent region in Austria at the beginning
of the period. It improved its position significantly in a programme period in which it spent
significantly on structural adjustment and infrastructure. The other regions were able to
maintain their relative position, with the notable exceptions of Andalucía (ES61) and
Galicia (ES11), which were unable to keep pace with Spanish national trends. Both these
regions were characterized by large investment in infrastructure, and Andalucía (ES61) also
by significant investment in environmental protection. However, expenditure on structural
adjustment was low in both regions, indicating there was limited direct investment in
tourism.
At the beginning of the 2000-2006 programme period, two regions relatively specialised in
tourism, Algarve (PT15) and Aquitaine (FR61) – data on the latter were not available for
the previous period - had disappointing relative performances, especially Algarve (PT15)
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 97 LSE
which lost as much as it gained in the previous period. It is, however, important to note
that the strategy in Algarve sought to upgrade the tourist offer towards higher value
tourism, which is not captured by a visitor-night indicator. In this region, the utility is
considerable insofar as the case study team concludes that nearly all the improvements in
the last 23 years are underpinned by ERDF investment. The performance of the other
regions is mixed, and better than in the previous programme period, with especially good
results achieved by Galicia (ES11) and Andalucía (ES61), exceeding the Spanish average.
7.4 The effects of ERDF expenditure
To complement the analyses based on the findings of the individual case studies,
econometric methods were used to investigate how ERDF spending affected the economies
of the 15 case study regions. This integrated modelling approach has generated findings
that fall in-between effectiveness and utility.. The analysis drew on a set of 17 categories
of explanatory variables, comprising: innovation, entrepreneurship and industrial
development, information society, transport, energy, environmental protection and risk
prevention, tourism, culture, urban and rural regeneration, increasing the adaptability of
workers and firms, enterprises and entrepreneurs, improving access to employment and
sustainability, improving the social inclusion of less-favoured persons, improving human
capital, investment in social infrastructure, mobilisation for reforms in the fields of
employment and inclusion, strengthening institutional capacity at national, regional and
local level, reduction of additional costs hindering the outermost regions development and
technical assistance.
The main findings of the research can be summarised as follows.
a) The negative association between ‘disadvantaged’ initial conditions and subsequent
growth is confirmed, suggesting the presence of some signs of regional convergence
over the period of analysis, although an employment structure with a relative
concentration of jobs in the primary sector is negatively correlated with subsequent
growth in both GVA and employment.
b) The association between ERDF expenditure and GVA growth – although valid for the
entire 15-region sample – is stronger for Convergence and Phasing-in/out regions.
c) The immediate effect of ERDF expenditure on GVA growth is very limited, and only
seems to be statistically significant for expenditure under the ‘culture’ category of
variables. However, when a time lag of one period between expenditure and
growth is introduced, expenditure in a number of categories becomes positive and
significantly correlated with GVA growth in the subsequent programme period. This
is true for spending on innovation, tourism, investment in social infrastructure’ and
technical assistance. There is, however, a negative correlation with spending on
increasing the adaptability of workers.
d) Employment growth results are mixed. There is a negative and statistically
significant association between expenditure in innovation and employment growth,
in line with the well-documented potential risk of innovation investment to reduce
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 98 LSE
employment. By contrast, expenditure on culture is positively correlated with
employment growth.
e) Introducing a one-period time lag, the analysis shows that links between
expenditure and employment are generally weaker, although increasing the
adaptability of workers is found to be negatively correlated with employment
growth.
f) Social cohesion expenditure is positively and significantly correlated with
employment growth in the short-term. Conversely both enterprise and spatial
cohesion spending show a negative and significant coefficient. This might suggest
the presence of potential trade-offs between enterprise development and
employment and, at the same time, between internal spatial equity (fostered by
spatial cohesion measures) and efficiency/total regional employment. All these
effects tend to fade in the medium-term.
g) More sophisticated modelling designed to capture the interactions between
determinants of performance suggests that there is a positive and significant
relationship between total expenditure and qualitative scores of achievements as
assessed by the case study teams, but that it is also contingent on an appropriate
thematic mix in the programme expenditure. Spending on enterprise, structural
adjustment and infrastructure is the most influential in this regard.
h) More detailed exploration of time effects was also undertaken. An expected finding
is that total Structural Funds expenditure as a share of GVA has a positive and
significant association with regional total GVA growth. However, there is also some
evidence that the ERDF effect increased after 1999, because the coefficient for this
variable become a little larger and the statistical significance is higher, possibly
suggesting regional learning. Building on the findings of Rodriguez-Pose and Fratesi
(2007), the analysis also shows that the effects of ERDF spending on regional
economic performance can persist, reaching a peak after two years, but then
tailing-off.
i) There is, however, no firm evidence on whether or not concentration of spending
on certain thematic axes makes a difference; indeed, there are very tentative
indications that a spread of spending across certain themes, notably enterprise,
structural adjustment and infrastructure is most conducive to better economic
performance. However, these results are not statistically very robust.
Findings from the case studies lend qualitative support to some of these broad conclusions.
For example, in Itä-Suomi, the case study finds that after some initial catch-up to the
Finnish average, progress has stalled. The study team argues that the explanation lies with
external forces, and not the ERDF programmes, and that the process of modernisation had
nevertheless been useful. The North East England case study emphasised the benefits of
spending on cultural renewal, while the limited employment gains in a number of regions
highlight some of the tensions in design of programmes with multiple objectives.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 99 LSE
7.5 Conclusions
As for effectiveness, the findings on utility are mixed. On the one hand, the ordinal
correlations make it clear that achievements are broadly coherent with needs, based on
aggregation of the qualitative assessments of the case study teams. Moreover, the fact that
this finding is generally corroborated across regions and periods signals that the nature of
particular interventions has been appropriate. Policy interventions can, to this extent, be
judged to be generally appropriate, although a cautionary note is sounded in the North
East England case study which observes that although ‘in all periods the region’s needs
were at least partly met, strategic choices affected the degree to which particular needs
were met’.
On the other hand, the results of the interventions on the three selected measures of need
are uneven and volatile. Some regions have moved from under-performing to exceeding
their respective national benchmarks and vice versa, while success in one area (such as
tourism) can be offset by a lack of progress on another or an inability to adapt the strategy.
In Burgenland, for example, the case study finds that with the exception of tourism, many
of the basic needs remain unmet, especially in the south of the region. In practice, this
could be explained by how choices are made on priorities, especially where programmes
have relatively limited resources. The Sachsen-Anhalt case study, as an illustration,
criticises a one-sided emphasis on fixed assets in the first two programme periods.
The discussion of the three groups of regions according to funding status shows that
priorities are, inevitably, also about sequencing and here there are diverse stories from the
15 regions. Basilicata appeared to have a better logic of development in the early period,
but was pulled towards a less useful approach subsequently. Regions may choose a
particular logic of intervention which achieves results in selected areas but fails to deal
with needs in others. Such a conclusion should be interpreted as neither surprising nor a
strong reason for criticism, because there is only so much that even the best ERDF
programme can do. Even so, as the Ireland case study emphasises, the ERDF has ‘left a
footprint now widely mainstreamed and often taken for granted, e.g. prevalence of multi-
annual public sector investment plans, the use of EU concepts and practices, and
widespread acceptance of the role of monitoring and evaluation’. It is a dimension of utility
that is discussed in the next chapter on lessons learnt.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 100 LSE
Figure 9: Relative unemployment rates in programme periods 1994-1999 and 2000-
2006
a) 1994-1999
PT15
ES61
FR61ITF5
AT11
ITF3
EL23
FI1DES11
UKC
FR30
DEA
PT11
DEE0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
enterprise_expend_ongva
struct_expend_ongva
labour_expend_ongva
b) 2000-2006
PT15
ES61
FR61 ITF5
AT11
ITF3
EL23
FI1D
ES11
UKC
FR30
DEA PT11
DEE0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
enterprise_expend_ongva
struct_expend_ongva
labour_expend_ongva
Source: Eurostat and data collected by the case study team for this project.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 101 LSE
Figure 10: Relative number of patent per million inhabitants in programme periods 2994-99 and 2000-2006
a) 1994-1999
PT15ES61
ITF5AT11
ITF3
EL23
FI1D
ES11
UKC
DEA
PT11
DEE0
-0.00014
-0.00012
-0.0001
-0.00008
-0.00006
-0.00004
-0.00002
0
0.00002
-0.00016 -0.00014 -0.00012 -0.0001 -0.00008 -0.00006 -0.00004 -0.00002 0 0.00002
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
enterprise_expend_ongva
struct_expend_ongva
inno_expend_ongva
b) 2000-2006
PT15
ES61
FR61
ITF5
AT11
ITF3
EL23
FI1D
ES11
UKC
FR30
DEA
PT11
DEE0
-0.00004
-0.00003
-0.00002
-0.00001
0
0.00001
0.00002
0.00003
0.00004
0.00005
0.00006
-0.00025 -0.0002 -0.00015 -0.0001 -0.00005 0 0.00005
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
enterprise_expend_ongva
struct_expend_ongva
inno_expend_ongva
Source: Eurostat and data collected by the case study team for this project.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 102 LSE
Figure 11: Relative number of nights spent in tourist accommodation establishments (by residents and non-residents) on population in programme periods 1994-1999 and 2000-2006
a) 1994-1999
PT15
ES61
ITF5
AT11
ITF3
ES11
DEA
PT11
DEE0
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
struct_expend_ongva
enviro_expend_ongva
infrastructure_expend_ongva
b) 2000-2006
PT15
ES61
FR61
ITF5
AT11
ITF3
ES11
UKC
FR30
DEA
PT11
DEE0
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Ab
solu
te c
han
ge o
f dif
fere
nti
al
Initial differential
struct_expend_ongva
enviro_expend_ongva
infrastructure_expend_ongva
Source: Eurostat and data collected by the case study team for this project.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 103 LSE
8. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS FOR COHESION POLICY
8.1 Introduction
The aim of this study has been to evaluate the main achievements of EU Cohesion policy
programmes and projects and their effectiveness and utility over the period 1989-2013 in
15 selected regions of the EU15. The main objectives of the study were to examine the
achievements of all programmes co-financed by the ERDF and, where applicable, the
Cohesion Fund, and to assess the relevance of programmes and the effectiveness and utility
of programme achievements. Taking the evaluation questions (EQs) in turn, this chapter
draws together the conclusions to emerge from the research focusing on whether and how
the programmes addressed regional needs and problems, and the achievements of the
programmes.
The experiences of the 15 regions provide extensive evidence on the formulation and
implementation of Cohesion policy, with both good and bad practices. The study has
identified lessons that may be applied to enhance the effectiveness and utility of ERDF
interventions across the full cycle of a programme. In addition to the conclusions, this
chapter discusses the main lessons learned and draws out implications for future Cohesion
policy.
Overall, the main message is one of slow improvement in many aspects of ERDF
programmes, although problems remain. Indeed, some regions have experienced a
deterioration of management or implementation quality in the most recent programmes.
Nonetheless, there is increasing adoption of good practice, for instance in the
sophistication of strategies (e.g. evidence base, analysis and strategic focus) and
programme management (e.g. project selection, monitoring, evaluation time). To
understand how Cohesion policy functioned, however, it is important to recognise the
context for decisions and the prevailing orthodoxies when programmes were launched.
What may be self-evident now about the 1989-1993 programme, for example, was not
necessarily obvious at the time. Enhanced sophistication in programming over time has
been a requirement of the European Commission, facilitated by learning from previous
programmes. What is more interesting is the additional innovation that can emerge from
below, but also the barriers which prevent learning taking place in some regions.
8.2 EQ1: To what extent did the programmes address regional needs and problems over time?)
EQ1a: What were the initial regional needs and problems and what has been their
evolution?
This analysis has covered a diverse set of regions, with different underlying development
needs, as reflected in their different ERDF eligibility status. In the late 1980s, the main
underlying needs related to: (i) major underdevelopment across all economic, social and
environmental indicators; (ii) problems related to population sparsity and/or peripherality;
(iii) a weak economic base, for instance due to transition from centrally planned economy
(Sachsen-Anhalt) or specialisation in agriculture or traditional industries (whether heavy
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 104 LSE
industries or low added value traditional manufacture); and (iv) the effects of spatial or
labour market disequilibria. The recipients of the most generous ERDF support - Dytiki
Ellada, Ireland and the Italian, Portuguese and Spanish regions - faced all of these needs at
the same time. The needs of other regions were more specific, for example related to
economic restructuring and labour market disequilibria (e.g. Nordrhein-Westfalen, Nord-
Pas-de-Calais and North East England) or population sparsity (Itä-Suomi).
Over time, some regions were able to overcome their initial challenges, others less so. The
greatest improvements were realised in the fields of infrastructure for basic public services
and transport, and the provision of essential public services. Of the various types of need,
the most resilient and resistant to policy has been the low levels of private sector R&D; this
was a need faced by all but two regions in the late 1980s and has since been successfully
met only in Ireland.
Of the regions classified as facing major under-development, Ireland has been deemed the
most successful in meeting the broad set of development needs. In many other cases,
development needs were partially met – for instance R&D expenditure improved over time
in Campania and in the Portuguese and Spanish regions – but without matching the regions’
potential and enabling them to catch-up with national and EU averages. Some needs were
not even partially met and indeed, in a few cases, even became worse. For instance, in
Sachsen-Anhalt long-term unemployment, social exclusion, poverty and weak private R&D
deteriorated during the study period, as did poverty in Basilicata and environmental
problems in Algarve and (partly) in Campania.
Economic growth remained low compared to both national and EU averages in a few regions
(such as Campania, Dytiki Ellada), meaning that they fell further behind during the period
notwithstanding periods of convergence. Regions tended to evolve in line with wider
national trends (with exceptions, as in Algarve). Strong and steady reductions of
unemployment during the period occurred only in Itä-Suomi, Ireland and North-East
England. At the opposite end of the scale, Sachsen-Anhalt faced sharp rises of
unemployment in the early 1990s, with rates remaining persistently high. In most regions,
unemployment tended to follow cyclical paths, with more-or-less pronounced periodic
fluctuations (e.g. in the French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese regions), or it fluctuated
marginally, remaining close to national values (Burgenland, Nordrhein-Westfalen).
Plotting employment against productivity growth reveals that only one region, Ireland,
experienced a ‘virtuous cycle’ of higher-than-average growth of both productivity and
employment over the period. At the opposite end of the spectrum, only one region,
Campania, experienced the ‘vicious cycle’ of relative decline, i.e. below-par job and
output growth (although some other regions feature as borderline with this category:
North-East England, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Basilicata). One third of regions
outperformed EU averages of either productivity or growth (Andalucía, Algarve, Aquitaine
and Sachsen-Anhalt) or both (Ireland). The other regions underperformed either on
unemployment rates (Itä-Suomi and Norte), productivity (North-East England, Nordrhein-
Westfalen, Basilicata, Nord-Pas de Calais, Burgenland and Dytiki Ellada) or both
(Campania).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 105 LSE
EQ1b: What was the strategy of ERDF programmes in each programme period? What
has been their evolution?
This study covers a period of four sets of programmes over twenty years and hence there is
an opportunity to examine the way in which programmes have evolved as a result of
learning from one to the next. Programme evolution is notable particularly in terms of the
ways in which priorities have been identified in relation to an increasingly sophisticated
understanding of needs, and changes in those needs.
The concept of strategic regional planning at a regional level was novel to many regions,
and in several regions the plans developed for the ERDF were the only or main regional
development strategies. These strategies varied within groups of regions, and also within
regions between periods, partly linked to their changing ERDF eligibility status.
There was a general improvement in the analysis of regional problems over the four
programme periods with most regions having struggled to bring together suitable data
before the 1989-1993 programmes, but making investments in data collection and analysis
over subsequent programme cycles. However, the availability of data is only the first step,
and regions needed the capacity to make judgements about the real needs and suitable
interventions arising from the evidence base. Here, judgements are more contested. Some
regions decided that accessibility and communication were the real underlying needs, and
these were prioritised accordingly, but such decisions underplayed the importance of
changing the productive structure of regions. A decision to address critical transport
problems often made sense, but may have had a limited effect on the resilience of the
region if the underlying economic base remained unchanged. This was the case in several of
the southern European regions such as Galicia, Andalucía, Dytiki Ellada and Algarve where
the opportunity cost of a focus on transport infrastructure may not have been sufficiently
taken into consideration in the sense that other, less obvious or immediate investments
might have yielded better results.
The Objective 1/Convergence regions along with the Phasing in/out regions of Algarve,
Basilicata and Ireland tended to have wide-ranging strategies, enabled by the financial
scale of EU support and the parallel implementation of a range of interventions, comprising
not just regional OPs but also sectoral OPs managed by national ministries and domestic
programmes. The strategies of these regions focused mainly on the creation of fixed
capital, i.e. different types of infrastructure, generally supplemented by human capital
investment and entrepreneurship and/or industrial development and reconversion support.
This emphasis continued throughout the study period, but from 2000-2006 with a stronger
emphasis on competitiveness and R&D&I.
The remaining Phasing-in/out regions had diversified strategies (reflecting their diverse
development challenges), with needs ranging from peripherality in Itä-Suomi to industrial
reconversion in Nord-Pas-de-Calais and predominant rurality in Burgenland. Burgenland
focused on entrepreneurial development though a mix of supply and demand-side support,
and a combination of instruments geared to clusters, new start-ups and individual
enterprise support, and a progressively increasing emphasis on R&D&I. Itä-Suomi’s
strategies were also predominantly focused on business support, increasingly geared
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 106 LSE
towards the knowledge economy. Lastly, Nord-Pas-de-Calais shifted from a dual strategy
based on infrastructure and business support in 1989-1993 to an increasing emphasis on
social issues and a wider ‘image’ change for the region, to allow it to grasp new economic
opportunities. On the whole, the strategy of this region was constantly informed by the
difficult trade-off between industrial reconversion and support to existing firms (and the
jobs that they provided), i.e. between an economic and a social rationale.
The Objective 2/RCE regions also had diversified strategies. Nordrhein-Westfalen
consistently focused on a dual strategy aimed at diversifying the industrial structure
alongside environmental reclamation, the former with an increasing emphasis over time on
entrepreneurial support (SMEs, start-ups, clusters and entrepreneurship) and innovation.
North East England focused initially very strongly on infrastructure to support FDI,
progressively shifting to enterprise and innovation support and softer investments, such as
community development and transformational tourism projects; whereas Aquitaine focused
especially on economic development and diversification in rural areas, entrepreneurship
and infra-regional territorial integration, with broad continuity across the periods.
Overall trends, insofar as they can be identified for 15 regions are: a greater emphasis on
R&D&I, particularly from 2000 onwards; the inclusion over time of support to integrated
urban and community development (initially piloted through the URBAN Community
Initiative and subsequently mainstreamed); and a progressive shift in support to tourism.
Tourism became a mainstay throughout the programme periods of most programme
strategies as a means for economic diversification and structural adjustment, but
progressively seen through the lenses of the wider attractiveness of regions, underpinned
by both cultural and environmental investments.
The research has also attempted to reconstruct the often implicit development theories
underlying programme strategies and in so doing to disentangle the difference between the
explicit strategic choices declared in the programme documents and the implicit strategies
actually pursued. The difference between the two sets of strategies was particularly
evident in the earlier programme periods of the 1990s, when programme strategies were
often not linked to sound analyses of needs or evaluation evidence, and they were often
generic collections of intervention fields with no clear prioritisation, providing room for
differing interpretations and operational choices.
In this respect, two conclusions can be drawn. First, it was not evident that strategies were
underpinned by theory, with the exception of the Basilicata and Campania in the 2000-
2006 period, North East England in the 2000s and the domestic regional policy focus of
Nordrhein-Westfalen and Sachsen-Anhalt. Especially in the early programmes, strategies
were generally drafted as compilations of interventions with no particular overarching
rationale. Second, and related, there were often divergences between what was stated in
the programmes and what was actually implemented. Generic programmes accommodated
diversified local priorities or preferences that were different from what was being
promoted by the European Commission or national government in the negotiation of
programmes and within the framework of the CSFs (e.g. in Aquitaine, Basilicata, North
East England, Norte, Itä-Suomi). Often, though, the differences between the strategies
stated in the programmes and what was actually implemented derived from the necessity
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 107 LSE
to find pragmatic responses to implementation difficulties, reflected in financial shifts
between and within priorities (e.g. in Campania in the 2000-2006 ROP in favour of transport
infrastructure).
A strategic problem in a number of cases was the lack of integration between national
Operational Programmes and regional-level programmes, and between national programmes
implemented by different ministries. Whilst the idea of national programmes for trans-
regional infrastructures makes sense, those countries with a large number of national
programmes experienced overlaps and duplication with regional programmes, without
effective coordination (examples are the experiences of Basilicata and Campania).
EQ1c: What were the priorities and objectives of ERDF programmes of each
programme period? What has been their evolution? Were the objectives SMART?
At the beginning of the study period, the programmes had relatively straightforward
objectives: (i) Algarve, Andalucía, Dytiki Ellada, Norte focused primarily on infrastructure,
together with ESF investments in human resources; (ii) Ireland, Campania, Basilicata and
Galicia had wide-ranging objectives, combined a strong focus on infrastructure endowment
(transport, environmental, industrial and social infrastructure) with entrepreneurial
support/structural adjustment measures aimed at developing industry, entrepreneurship,
conversion, skills, competitiveness and wider quality of life; (iii) Nordrhein-Westfalen,
Sachsen-Anhalt, Nord-Pas-de-Calais and North East England focused mainly on the
challenges of structural adjustment, often together with external accessibility, the pursuit
of intra-regional territorial balance and/or support of marginalised groups; (iv) Aquitaine
and Itä-Suomi focused predominantly on economic diversification in rural/sparsely
populated areas; whilst (v) Burgenland targeted especially entrepreneurial development.
For the most part, the regional objectives were stable over time, tending to evolve
incrementally. This applied in particular to the 1990s, with the exception of Nordrhein-
Westfalen. More substantial changes were undertaken at the start of the 2000-2006 and
2007-2013 periods, driven mainly by compliance with EU regulatory requirements, changes
in the eligibility status of regions (e.g. Ireland in 2000, Basilicata in 2007) or parts of
regions. The recent economic crisis has led to extensive reprogramming in a number of
regions – Dytiki Ellada, Campania, Basilicata and Norte.
As noted above, trends over the period included an increasing emphasis on R&D, often
matched with a stronger focus on entrepreneurship through more sophisticated approaches
for the support of SMEs; increased support for urban development projects; and a continued
emphasis on four key themes: tourism (virtually everywhere), increasingly linked with
cultural and wider attractiveness measures; nature protection and environmental
infrastructure (in some of the regions classified in the ‘major underdevelopment’
category); cross-border cooperation in selected regions (Galicia, Aquitaine, Norte and Itä-
Suomi); and improvement of the quality of life.
The extent to which objectives were SMART – specific, measurable, attainable, relevant
and timely – varied across regions and especially across the period. Insofar as a general
trend can be identified, it is that early programmes tended to have generic objectives, that
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 108 LSE
they were not defined and framed in a way that made them measurable, that targets were
often absent and expectations overestimated (thus attainability was questionable), and
that objectives were not time-bound in the sense of being linked to a realistic operational
timetable. Whilst regions were required to set objectives and targets for programmes and
measures, the experience of doing so was generally poor, with regions struggling to identify
appropriate indicators and setting targets at levels which were either unrealistic or too
modest. As a result, targets were frequently revised down in some of the earlier
programmes as it became clear that they were far higher than could be attained.
Programme objectives, nevertheless, tended to be relevant from the early days of ERDF
programming, with the main problem being the prioritisation of efforts, rather than the
inability of programme authorities to appropriately identify needs. In a few cases,
programme objectives were considered to be only moderately relevant across the entire
study period, the examples being Dytiki Ellada, Itä-Suomi, Algarve, Aquitaine and North
East England.
The SMARTness of programme objectives improved over time, especially the degree to
which objectives became more specific and measureable, although progress was
incremental. The ability of programme authorities to set realistic targets and identify
timely paths for implementation remains an area for further improvements. A particular
problem was the difficulty in estimating a sensible target in advance of knowing the types
of project. A target set in the expectation of a particular mix of projects could become
unrealistic simply because the projects proposed and selected were of a different character
to those anticipated – for example if offices were built rather than manufacturing or
warehouses. But there was also a general difficulty in estimating targets linked to a lack of
understanding about what had been the actual achievements of programme interventions in
past periods, due to the variable quality of the information provided by programme
monitoring systems and the lack of comprehensive, detailed and reliable ex post evaluative
evidence.
EQ1d: What has ERDF support been spent on in each programme period? Have there
been significant transfers from initial allocations of ERDF resources to other priorities
in any period?
Over the period 1989-2013, ERDF programmes were designed and funding allocated periods
ranging from three to seven years. The longer periods allowed programme authorities to
take a longer perspective on needs and to fund larger, more strategic projects; equally,
they also need the ability to respond to sudden changes in need and to fit with national
funding cycles. This flexibility has been particularly important since the global financial
crisis as the assumptions on which funding were planned changed fundamentally in many
cases.
The distribution of expenditure across different themes varied by type of region. The
Objective 1/Convergence regions tended to focus predominantly on basic and transport
infrastructure, across all programme periods except for 2007-2013. The proportion ranged
from 56 percent of total expenditure in 1989-1993, to 31 percent in 1994-1999 and 2000-
2006, falling to a low of 14 percent in 2007-2013. Enterprise support also featured
prominently, remaining in the 20-27 percent range from 1994-1999 to 2007-2013, compared
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 109 LSE
to only five percent in 1989-1993. The main thematic shift over time was a strengthening of
support for social cohesion and the labour market, a trend that started in 2000-2006. The
themes of innovation and environmental sustainability remained broadly stable; innovation
was allocated 3-4 percent of total expenditure in the 1990s rising slightly to seven percent
in 2000-2006 and 2007-2013, while environmental sustainability received around 15 percent
of total expenditure in the first three programme periods, falling to around ten percent in
2007-2013.
In the Phasing-in/out regions, the initial programmes also focused predominantly on
infrastructure, which accounted for almost 60 percent of spend in 1989-1993, but became
more diversified in subsequent periods. There was a stronger emphasis on enterprise
support (34 percent, 38 percent and 21 percent respectively in 1994-1999, 2000-2006 and
2007-2013) and, in the 2007-2013 period, structural adjustment and innovation
(respectively at 23 and 22 percent of expenditure).
By contrast, in the Objective 2/RCE regions, expenditure was heavily concentrated on
enterprise support until 2006 (with this theme accounting for 50 percent of expenditure in
1989-1993, 30 percent in 1994-1999, 35 percent in 2000-2006, but only 15 percent in 2007-
2013) and a marked shift towards innovation and social cohesion in the 2007-13 period. In
this group, two themes received relatively little policy attention throughout the study
period: territorial cohesion and the environment. However, whilst the former has
progressively diminished (from ten percent in both 1989-1993 and 1994-1999, to three
percent in 2000-2006 and no expenditure in 2007-2013), the latter has seen its share double
from 2000-2006 (from four percent to 11 percent of total expenditure).
With the exception of Algarve (ROP only), Andalucía, Ireland and Itä-Suomi, there were
shifts of ERDF resources between priorities in all programme periods up to 2006. The
content and scale of these shifts varied and no general pattern can be identified. For
instance, In Nord-Pas-de-Calais significant shifts took place from the innovation and
entrepreneurship priorities in early programme periods in favour of infrastructure; whilst in
Burgenland, entrepreneurship priorities gained in all periods. In some cases, such as in the
Italian programmes, there were also shifts of resources between programmes (from the
ROPs to the NOPs or vice-versa) within the CSF, with the performance reserve being used to
reward good use of the funds (for Basilicata). Shifts of resources occurred also within
priorities, i.e. within measures. These shifts did not always represent a change in strategic
orientation, but rather reflected operational difficulties and absorption capacity.
8.3 EQ2: To what extent do ERDF achievements meet regional objectives and needs in each programme period and across all periods?
EQ2a: What are the reported achievements of each programme period
Detailed outputs on the 1989-1993 period were available for only six of the 15 regions
examined: Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Dytiki Ellada, Ireland, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Algarve and
Norte. They consist of indicators such as length of road, water and sewage networks built,
area of land where premises were built or refurbished. Job creation was monitored or
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 110 LSE
appraised by only a few programmes or programme interventions in Ireland, Dytiki Ellada
and the two German Länder, ranging from a reported 20,000 new net jobs created in
Ireland and 17,000 jobs created and safeguarded in Nordrhein-Westfalen (plus a further
likely job creation of a further 7,000 jobs), to the more modest 1,162 new jobs in Dytiki
Ellada (the majority of which were temporary new jobs linked to the supported
investments).
More information on reported outputs is available for the 1994-1999 programmes, as a
result of improvements in the monitoring systems implemented regionally and/or
nationally. Additionally, the two ex post evaluations undertaken for the European
Commission (DG XVI) and evaluations undertaken domestically (e.g. in Ireland), provide
information on the estimated jobs created and safeguarded by the programmes in the
various regions. These range from 33,000 net new jobs created in Ireland and c. 28,000
jobs created and 55,000 safeguarded in Sachsen-Anhalt, to around 2,300 new jobs in
Burgenland and c. 320 new jobs created by the Algarve ROP. However, these data appear
to suffer from potential inaccuracies, as noted for instance by the ex post evaluation of the
Objective 6 programme of Itä-Suomi which indicated that the figure of jobs created and
reported by the programme (of 21,000 new jobs and 62,000 safeguarded jobs) was very
substantially over-estimated, with the true figure more like 10-20 percent of this estimate.
Output data on 2000-2006 are more readily and comprehensively available, reflecting
further improvements in programme monitoring systems. Partly because of the greater
sophistication of programmes and the improved administrative capacity within managing
authorities, the 2000-2006 generation of programmes saw a proliferation in the number of
indicators. Despite this, the monitoring of results remained a problem in this period also, as
they were not always appropriately captured by programme monitoring systems (which
might track jobs created by individual projects but based on aggregation of figures declared
by project managers), nor did the majority of programmes undertake their own ex post
evaluations. Even when programme-specific programme evaluations were undertaken, as in
Campania, these did not always attempt to assess net job creation and focused instead on
the appraisal of the monitoring data reported for the programme (in itself a useful exercise
which pointed to clear conclusions on the programme’s effectiveness and recommendations
for the future programme).
Information on programme results in the regions – even in aggregate form – is by and large
also not available from the ex post evaluations of the 2000-2006 ERDF programmes, other
than on selected themes for the regions covered by case study research. Information on job
creation is available nevertheless for almost all the regions investigated (12 out of 15),
ranging from the c. 80,000 new jobs created in Galicia and the 35,000 net new jobs
generated in North East England, to the more modest c. 17,000 jobs (of which only 2,310
permanent) in Dytiki Ellada. In no case, across the programme periods, does there appear
to be a direct correlation between the number of reported jobs created or safeguarded by
the programmes, and the financial input of the Funds relative to the regional economy.
It would be premature to appraise the reported achievements of 2007-2013 programmes
given the delays with implementation and the significant changes introduced to the
programmes in the light of the effect of the recession in the regional economies.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 111 LSE
Thematically, across the entire study period, achievements were reported in relation to
R&D spending relative to GDP or GNP, with upward trends in Campania and Ireland,
whereas attempts to increase private sector R&D expenditure were generally less
successful, with the notable exception of North East England. Reported achievements in
the enterprise sector were very diverse and did not always translate into increased
productivity. In the tourism field, reported achievements, such as the increased number of
beds created and tourists in the regions, were also wide-ranging, but they did not always
prove to be sustainable, with reversals during the current recession. Detailed output data
are generally available across all regions in relation to the different types of infrastructure
built or modernised – i.e. industrial areas, roads and railways, ports, logistical platforms,
environmental and basic infrastructure (e.g. water and sewage networks, water purification
plants), social infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, telecommunications (phone lines
initially and broadband subsequently) – showing the importance of ERDF support in these
fields in all regions deemed at the beginning of the study period to be characterised by
major underdevelopment.
EQ2b: To what extent were objectives achieved in each programme period?
The main conclusion from the qualitative assessments of achievements in relation to
programme objectives is that, overall, Cohesion policy intervention over the period 1989-
present was effective, but with variation by programme period, theme and region. Regions
are considered to have (mostly) improved their attainment of objectives. In 1989-1993, only
six regions were judged to have met or exceeded programme objectives, for six others it
was impossible to make a judgement, and three others underperformed. By contrast, in the
2000-2006 period, the majority of regions met or exceeded their objectives. However,
these conclusions need to be read with important caveats in mind. In particular, the
vagueness of programme objectives in some cases involves considerable subjectivity in
judging whether they were achieved, and the ‘increased effectiveness’ of 2000-2006
programmes needs to take account of the frequent reviews of programme targets during
implementation (increasing the likely match between expectations and reality).
With respect to specific areas of intervention, effectiveness appears to have been higher
for large-scale physical infrastructure, environmental improvements and local business and
innovation infrastructure. Regions had difficulty with areas like structural adjustment,
business support, innovation and community development, all of which required operational
strategies, delivery systems and administrative capacity.
EQ2c: To what extent were needs met in each programme period? To what extent can
observed changes in regional needs and problems be imputed to ERDF programmes
over time?
The utility of programmes is the extent to which they led to impacts that, irrespective of
whether they were intended or whether they were delivered within the programme
timeframes, addressed regional needs and solved problems that held back their socio-
economic development. This has been done by comparing achievements with needs, in each
of the eight thematic axes and overall, and establishing ordinal correlations between the
two.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 112 LSE
The main conclusion is that, for all periods and for all the themes taken together, the
policy has been useful in meeting regional needs over the long run. Interestingly, however,
utility is assessed as being higher in the first two programme periods and lower in 2000-
2006 (it is too soon to appraise utility for the 2007-2013 programmes), suggesting that the
increased sophistication of programmes has not meant improved utility or that it is too soon
to make a judgement.
The highest utility was found in the regional infrastructure endowment thematic axis
(which mainly comprises transport and telecommunications infrastructure), notwithstanding
the lack of resources to fund operational and maintenance costs in some regions,
exacerbated by the economic crisis, a consequence which diminishes the utility of
investments. A high degree of utility across the study period as a whole was also reported in
the fields of enterprise and innovation, whereas only one theme - infra-regional territorial
cohesion – displays a low long-term utility, with positive assessments only in the first two
programme periods.
Utility is assessed as ‘high’ to ‘medium’ in all the regions which were classified as facing
major underdevelopment at the beginning of the period: the highest in Ireland, also high in
Algarve, and medium in Andalucía, Basilicata, Campania, Dytiki Ellada, Galicia and Norte,
as well as in Sachsen-Anhalt which faced somewhat different challenges in its transition
from central planning. The Irish case is particularly emblematic. Here, the ERDF
programmes and Cohesion Fund projects allowed the country to undergo both endogenous
and exogenous development, leveraging-in or providing the conditions for the attraction of
foreign direct investment whilst at the same time supporting the indigenous economy. In
Algarve, the ERDF programmes and Cohesion Fund were instrumental in the modernisation
of the region’s infrastructure and urban network, thus providing a basis for growth based on
the expansion of the tourism industry, on which the region today remains largely dependent
however. In the remaining regions, the ERDF programmes (and Cohesion Fund in Andalucía,
Dytiki Ellada and Norte) delivered important improvements in transport and social
infrastructure and some environmental improvements, but without being able to ignite a
process of self-sustaining growth - which has made the economic achievements less
resilient to the current downturn. This is hindering the overall utility of the investments
made in those fields where the programmes were successful in meeting regional needs, as
the lack of growth did not deliver the growth in tax revenues that would have been
necessary to maintain and run the infrastructure built.
Utility was on the whole medium to high also in the Objective 2/RCE regions, typically
characterised by declining heavy industry (Nordrhein-Westfalen, and North East England)
and in Nord-Pas-de-Calais which faced similar problems. The utility of the ERDF
programmes in these regions was highest in relation to environmental needs, connected to
reclamation of abandoned industrial land which was largely completed. The lowest levels of
utility related to social challenges deriving from the process of deindustrialisation, which
were not met. The utility of programmes in facilitating economic transition to a different
economic model was mixed, probably reflecting the difficulty of these regions in
reconciling long-term and short-term needs within programme strategies. Economic utility
appears to have been increasing in the 2000s, in parallel with the greater emphasis placed
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 113 LSE
in the strategies on innovation and the increased sophistication in the support provided to
different types of firms.
Lastly, in Aquitaine, Burgenland, Itä-Suomi and – more rural regions in the Phasing-on/out
and RCE groups also hampered by peripherality or limited connectivity - the utility of
programmes was mixed in meeting the main needs. Progress with improving connectivity
and diversifying the production base was on the whole not particularly encouraging.
Aquitaine has experienced more limited success in the transformation of its economy.
Burgenland continues to have unmet basic needs in all fields except for tourism, especially
in the south of the region, and Itä-Suomi is still struggling to overcome the growth-
depressing effects of peripherality. All regions faced multiple and complex needs.
The varied degree to which the 15 regions were successful in addressing the full range of
development challenges is, in part, a natural outcome of the limited scope of programmes
and the difficulty of addressing all areas of need. To an extent, the achievements reflect
the choices made by programme authorities, which in some cases were informed by a
perception of need calibrated over the short and medium terms, rather than being guided
by a longer-term vision of how the regions might change. Nevertheless, the conclusion that
not all needs were addressed should not come as a surprise, nor should it be viewed as a
strong criticism, given that there is only so much that even the best ERDF programmes can
do. It does, however, raise questions about the complementarity (and additionality) of the
programmes and their coherence with wider domestic public policies.
Lastly, a further dimension of utility is represented by the ‘learning’ that implementing
multi-annual programmes, with associated monitoring, evaluation, control and reporting
requirements has entailed for regional and national administrations.
EQ2d: What have been the complementarities and synergies of ERDF interventions
with ESF, EAGGF/EAFRD, and with domestic regional policy interventions?
The ERDF programmes, even when they represent a significant portion of public
expenditure in a region (as has been the case historically for most regions characterised by
‘major underdevelopment’), must act synergistically with, and complement, other
investment programmes, in order to deliver their ambitious development goals. The
evidence from the case studies suggests that this has been a critical aspect of the ERDF
programmes, and that complementarities and synergies were often limited to specific fields
or projects, rather than systematically pursued (with the notable exception of Ireland).
Until recently, ERDF support was often embedded in multi-fund programmes, i.e.
programmes that included funding from all Structural Funds applicable to the region
including ESF, EAGGF (now EAFRD) and FIFG (now EFF). Despite this, and partly due to the
separation of Fund management, the operation of the programmes tended by and large to
prioritise efficient delivery over synergies and results-orientation.
Examples of synergy between Structural Funds include the provision of training courses
(ESF-funded) together with investments in new machinery or innovation (ERDF-funded), or
the provision of irrigation infrastructure (ERDF-funded) in parallel with support for
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 114 LSE
agricultural activities (EAGGF funded). In some cases, as in the Italian Integrated Aid
Packages implemented under the Objective 1 ‘Local Entrepreneurial Development’ 2000-
2006 programme, integration between the funds was incentivised explicitly at project
level, through the design of application and selection procedures, but this experience was
an exception. Complementarity and synergy were thus encouraged at intervention or
project level, but not systematically across all fields of intervention.
Systematic synergy between the various Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund occurred
only in Ireland, where good cross-fund coordination was ensured by framing Cohesion policy
within wider national development policy. Elsewhere, coordination and synergy was
disappointing, and it was particularly so in Basilicata, Campania, Algarve, Norte and
Nordrhein-Westfalen. Interestingly, the existence of overarching strategies, such as the
CSF and NSRF, is not per se a sufficient tool to ensure strategic and operational coherence
between funds (and indeed, as the case study research has uncovered, between national
and regional level programmes).
Synergies with domestic policies tended to be less problematic. This was driven by two,
closely interlinked factors. First, among the largest regional recipients of EU funding, there
was strong alignment or integration of ERDF programmes with domestic capital spending
programmes. For instance, in Greece around 70 percent of the national Public Investments
Programme for the whole 1989-2013 period was allocated to co-finance the national
contribution to the Structural Funds; whilst in Ireland, CSFs have been embedded in
successive National Development Plans, meaning that ERDF expenditure was guided by
national policy and co-funded as part of national programmes. Second, for all programmes
the requirement to provide match-funding meant that the ERDF was used to support
investments undertaken as part of domestic policies, e.g. the Centres of Excellence
programmes in Itä-Suomi or the domestic regional policy (GRW) in Germany. In a few case
studies, the research uncovered additionality problems. In Italy, for instance, the declining
domestic public spending in recent years has meant that ERDF has in some cases ended up
replacing domestic funding, with negative consequences for additionality and thus on the
ultimate impact that the programmes will deliver.
EQ2e: What has been the overall contribution of ERDF programmes to regional
development?
What constitutes an important contribution to regional development is generally highly
context-specific. A key dilemma in most regions was to choose between large, strategic
projects and distributing funds across a larger number of smaller, perhaps community-
focused projects. It should be noted that the limited size of projects is not per se an
element of bad practice and, vice versa, that large projects are not necessarily the best
solution. It is arguable that certain types of interventions, e.g. in the cultural sphere or
grassroots social cohesion projects, require by nature to be smaller scale. What matters is
that a degree of critical mass is ensured, in order to achieve the objectives set in
programme documents, and this might be better achieved by aggregation rather than larger
project size (e.g. the Phlegrean Fields integrated territorial programme in Campania,
which was successfully implemented through the integration and coordination of over 100
projects).
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 115 LSE
Nevertheless, a problem in some regions was the proliferation of small projects which were
not linked cohesively in an overarching framework of how, together, they would contribute
to programme objectives, and which in some cases exceeded the administrative capacities
of regions, resulting in delays or high project mortality. In these cases, there was often a
view that a focused approach was more likely to be effective. In most regions, there was a
movement over time towards more strategic use of the funds and in favour of larger
projects, partly encouraged by the Commission and the pressures of commitment. However,
problems were also experienced with large projects. Several of the case studies highlighted
controversial projects where the value-for-money was disputed (Aquitaine, for example),
the project planning was too ambitious (Itä-Suomi) or there were significant problems with
completing projects to time and budget (Dytiki-Ellada, Norte).
ERDF programmes and the investments of the Cohesion Fund have only facilitated a
transformative effect across the board in Ireland, delivering considerable improvements in
the main areas of regional need and a matching increase in growth and employment.
Naturally, the programmes played a role alongside other developments. In Ireland, the
positive economic transformation was linked to the integration of the country’s economy in
wider global markets, across both sides of the Atlantic. This might have an impact on the
resilience of the improvements realised, given the country’s integration in global economic
networks affected by the economic crisis.
In a further group of regions – Algarve, Andalucía and Galicia – the ERDF programmes have
delivered a transformation of the regional economies, which has indeed been reflected in
GDP convergence with the rest of the EU and improved labour market indicators, but which
is not proving to have sustainably affected the regions’ longer-term development prospects
and resilience. In these regions, the ERDF programmes and the Cohesion Fund contributed
to major improvements in regional infrastructure endowment and the provision of public
services - across all types of infrastructure and services, from transport to schools and
hospitals, from water networks and purification plants, to waste collection and recycling
etc. However, the induced economic transformation was based largely on tourism and
services, whereas improvements in productivity and in high-added value clusters were
limited to segments of the regional economies which represent relatively small proportions
the regional GVA and employment.
In most of the regions – Aquitaine, Basilicata, Campania, Dytiki Ellada, Norte and
Sachsen-Anhalt – the ERDF programmes (and Cohesion Fund in the Greek case) facilitated a
transformation in specific fields, without having a pronounced wider impact on growth and
employment (except in Basilicata) and leaving major needs still unaddressed. In Aquitaine,
for instance, improvements were made in developing the image of the regional capital,
Bordeaux, and in providing services to the rural areas, with the effect of countering
depopulation trends. But, although the programmes have contributed to avoiding a
worsening of territorial disparities, they have not been successful at modernising and
diversifying the region’s productive base which largely remains reliant on the production of
wine, food and trade activities inherited from the past.
Similarly, in Sachsen-Anhalt, there were successes in the fields of structural adjustment
and enterprise development, but significant problems - such as overall low productivity,
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 116 LSE
high unemployment levels, low entrepreneurial propensity, poor levels of R&D&I and
underdeveloped network of urban agglomerations – have still to be addressed. In similar
vein, Basilicata saw major improvements in the provision of basic public services, which
were pivotal to develop certain sectors, but without solving the fundamental isolation of
the region and altering the overall economic model based largely on agriculture and
(increasingly, thanks to the programmes), tourism. Arguably, in regions such as Dytiki
Ellada, Campania and Norte, the fact that the transformation achieved was substantial,
but limited to specific fields (basic and transport infrastructure and services, quality of life,
environmental sustainability) derives from the sheer scale and diversity of the needs to be
addressed, and the overall limited scale of the resources mobilised.
In the remaining regions – Burgenland, Nordrhein-Westfalen, North East England, Itä-
Suomi and Nord-Pas-de-Calais – the ERDF programmes have had a positive influence on
wider development factors, supporting change in specific fields, but were unable
(understandably, given their moderate scale of intervention) to make a decisive difference
to the problems of the regions, and they did not induce a wider transformation of their
economies (except to a degree in Burgenland). For instance, in Nordrhein-Westfalen,
important achievements were realised in the fields of enterprise and structural adjustment,
but unemployment is still high. In Itä-Suomi, the ERDF supported existing domestic policies
in the fields of enterprise and innovation, but without facilitating an economic
configuration of the region, which remains fundamentally hampered by its isolation within
Finland. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais, the programmes enabled a modernisation of certain
traditional economic sectors (e.g. transport), promoted new specialisations (ICT) and
attracted new investors to the region, but with effects concentrated in the main urban
areas of Lille and Arras, thus reinforcing existing infra-regional territorial disparities. In
North East England, the programmes successfully promoted a new approach to economic
development based on culture and tourism, and improved quality of life through community
regeneration projects, but without being able to affect the fundamental shortcomings of
the regional economy: low productivity, low entrepreneurship and innovation, high
unemployment and worklessness. Lastly, in Burgenland, the ERDF contributed to advances
in GDP per capita and economic performance (although needs persist in most fields except
tourism, especially in the south of the region) and the Land also benefited from the
economic performance of Austria, the positive impact of development trends such as the
suburbanisation of Vienna, and the effect of domestic interventions in public transport
networks.
If there have been marked differences across the 15 regions in the extent to which the
ERDF programmes delivered true and long-lasting socio-economic transformation, the
institutional achievements have been both wide-ranging and widespread, ranging from the
introduction of strategic multi-annual planning, to the introduction or improvement of
monitoring, reporting and evaluation practices, to a general increase in the level of
technical capacity and skills within regional and national administrations.
In most cases, programme resources were not sufficient to address all areas of need. Even
so, the fact that in most cases there was only a partial transformation should not be viewed
as a criticism: in most if not all case studies, the perception of stakeholders is that the
regions would have been worse-off had the programmes not occurred, and that the ERDF
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 117 LSE
programmes determined or facilitated a change which saw the regions become better
places in which to live, invest or visit. ERDF programmes generally had a transformative
effect, but one which has not resulted in growth, productivity and employment, or affected
the regions’ longer-term resilience. In this sense, the ability of the programmes to
stimulate entrepreneurship, induce innovation and support competitiveness appears to have
been rather disappointing.
8.4 EQ3: What are the main lessons learnt on the effectiveness and utility of ERDF interventions in each region?
EQ3a: What are the main good/bad practices?
The research has found both good and bad practices in relation to various aspects of
programme management and implementation: identification of need; strategic planning;
institutional capacity; setting SMART objectives; evolution of programmes; allocation and
flexibility of funding; scale and nature of strategic projects; and evaluation.
In relation to the identification of need, a good practice which has emerged from the
research is the regional foresight exercise undertaken in North East England ahead of the
2007-2013 programme period. More generally, the improvements realised in many regions
over time in the use and quality of information for needs assessment, are also considered
good practices. The other side of the coin is that in the early programmes, particularly at
the beginning of the study period, there was very little effort to undertake regional
analyses based on data and evaluative evidence.
Good practices in strategic planning were found in Burgenland and Andalucía: Burgenland
for the mobilisation of different bodies to discuss and inform strategies when the region
first started implementing the policy (in 1995) and Andalucía for the creation of new
competences which would subsequently prove fundamental to implementation. The fact
that early strategies were not driven by need, were excessively focused on infrastructure
and derived with little or no involvement of stakeholders beyond the administration was
seen as a bad practice in Dytiki Ellada. Another bad practice has been the limited
prioritisation of efforts (in 2000-2006) and competence subdivision with domestic policies
and between NOPs and ROP in Campania, which resulted in overly ambitious targets and
limited effectiveness.
With respect to institutional capacity and leadership - good practices included the
involvement of secondees from local authorities in the managing authority in North East
England and the appointment of a high-profile academic as regional minister for transport
in Campania. The latter provided strong expertise, leadership and coalesced technical
expertise, allowing for better planning, coordination of different funding sources and
synergy with national policy. Bad practices include problems with R&D interventions in
Nordrhein-Westfalen, poor support to beneficiaries in rural areas in Aquitaine, difficulties
with organising expertise, raise capacities, sustain the improvements made and continuity
after political change in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, Basilicata and Campania.
Setting SMART objectives is an area which has been characterised by bad, rather than good,
practice. The measurability and attainability of objectives, in particular, have been a
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 118 LSE
constant problem in many regions, requiring expectations to be scaled down during
implementation. This was linked in earlier periods to the deficiency of reliable information
and data, which meant that the information on what did and did not work in earlier
programmes could not be integrated in the strategic thinking of the next. Ireland perhaps
experienced fewest problems with this, but partly because the ERDF programmes were
embedded in a single national strategy making measurement easier. However, while this
integrated approach eased monitoring difficulties when EU co-financed expenditure
constituted all or most of the national investment, as its share fell after 2000 attribution of
national programme achievements to the reduced EU contribution became more
problematic.
Evolution of programmes across the study period - bad practices include the tendency to
replicate the same mix of interventions for cost-efficiency reasons, instead of appraising
their effectiveness (Dytiki Ellada), and the interruption of certain types of interventions in
the transition from the 2000-2006 to the 2007-2013 period in Campania, which arguably
hindered the longer-term achievements that could be delivered by already implemented
measures (in the R&D field).
Allocation and flexibility of funding - the programmes have not always been able to react
quickly to changing contexts and needs. Nevertheless, there are examples of good
practices, such as the successful adaptation of the Galicia ROP in order to tackle the
environmental damage of the Prestige oil tank spill. More recently, many regions have been
able to modify their programmes in order to address social and economic needs associated
with the economic crisis. Bad practices were found in Campania, in relation to the inability
of ROPs to accommodate the difficulty of tourist firms in keeping up with the investment
and employment plans anticipated in funding applications. The result was withdrawals,
with negative consequences for the beneficiaries, the programme and wider tourist industry
and economy of the region.
Scale and nature of project - Programmes often faced trade-offs between achieving critical
mass and accommodating different stakeholder interests and local demands. The
proliferation of small projects was viewed as a critical aspect of programmes in many
regions (e.g. Aquitaine, Basilicata, Dytiki Ellada, Norte and North East England until the
early 2000s). The focus on a limited set of large-scale strategic projects in key fields was
considered a good practice in North East England. Nevertheless, in this area more so than
in others, what constitutes a good and a bad practice needs to be viewed within the
specific context of each region.
Evaluation - Good practices include the ex post evaluation of the 2000-2006 ROP
undertaken in Campania which provided accountability and lessons for the next programme
and the spillover effect on domestic policy in Aquitaine. The lack of comprehensive
programme and multi-programme ex post evaluations (comprising ROPs and NOPs
implemented in a given region) is a bad practice. As the case studies uncovered, there is
little evidence on the achievements of programmes and on the extent to which they
contributed to change the reality of regions.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 119 LSE
Many examples of good practice projects were reported in the case study research, a
sample of which is shown in Table 17, based on the judgements of case study teams. These
are not necessarily the best projects in their regions but are examples which were
examined and had some good practice characteristics. In a number of cases, the good
practice relates to a group of projects or a sub-programme where it is the collective effect
that makes a difference. What made for a good practice project was attributed to various
factors: suitability for local needs and conditions; good planning and management;
innovative project design; commitment from project participants; attention to quality; and
learning from experience. Bad practices were likely to arise from projects that were not
well thought through, from ‘me-too’ projects copied from other regions, and where local
organisations or businesses were more focused on drawing down funding than designing
effective projects, sometimes investing because funding was available, rather than to
implement necessary changes, or acquiring funding for investments that they would have
realised anyway also in the absence of support.
Good projects were based on an understanding of local needs but also with innovation to go
beyond normal expectations. Quality was a key element, either in design and management
or in the nature of what was delivered, such as the design and technical standards of a road
building or service to increase aspirations, or the nature of research projects undertaken (a
full review of these projects, with detailed examination of why they are considered good
practices is provided in annex to each of the case study reports).
Changes at the national level should also be mentioned. For example, Italy introduced
performance reserve systems (in both 2000-06 and 2007-13, with lessons from 2000-06
feeding-in to the framing of the 2007-13 performance reserve). It also pioneered an
extensive system of additionality accounting (Conti Pubblici Territoriali, used for the two
Italian case studies), opening up of data from the monitoring system (opencoesione.gov),
and improvements in evaluation through the setting up of Evaluation Units. The
establishment of an Evaluation Unit was particularly successful in Campania as part of the
regional strategy to improve the governance of structural funds programmes. Even so, in
Campania, the direction of policy was reported to be driven by predominantly politics
rather than by the evidence from evaluation, even in the presence of internal evaluations,
with the result that there was a lack of continuity in successful initiatives.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 120 LSE
Table 18: Examples of good practice projects
Good practice projects and sub-programmes
Algarve Development of marinas to support and diversify tourism.
‘Cork Route’ to spread tourism into rural interior and connect traditional industries
Village revitalisation in the interior to enhance quality of life and reverse the process of depopulation
Andalucía Andalucía Forest Plan to combat natural hazards such as desertification and erosion whilst protecting ecosystems and developing new rural activities.
Aquitaine Laser Highway strategy to build a high technology cluster
Tourism promotion in Oloron-Sainte-Marie
Aquitaine Regional Incubator
Basilicata Basilicata Sviluppo development agency promoting entrepreneurship and SMEs
Scheme to promote a computer in every home to encourage internet use
Burgenland Tourism projects especially spa resorts and a focus on wellness tourism
Integrated development of renewable energy and biomass in a peripheral location linked to university knowledge.
Campania ‘Il Tari’ service and production centre to support the goldsmiths cluster
Naples metropolitan transport system
Phlegraean Fields Integrated Territorial Project
Dytiki Ellada Rion-Atirion Bridge, linking two halves of the region and replacing a ferry crossing
Patras Science Park
Tourism and cultural development projects at Ancient Olympia.
Integrated programmes in selected mountainous areas
Galicia Rural telephone plan
SOGAMA environmental management company to manage waste transportation and treatment
PIMEGA programme to develop entrepreneurial skills and provide SME support
Ireland Tourism development initiatives improved the quality of the tourism product in Ireland and allowed a better exploitation of resources and opportunities.
National roads programme
Itä-Suomi Institutionalised cooperation networks between universities, polytechnics & firms
EASTWOOD growth and development programme for wood based manufacturing and construction companies
Nord-Pas de Calais
Protection and management of the Two Capes coastline area, to restore the natural environment and provide better tourist facilities.
Development of the Dourges multimodal logistical hub on derelict land.
New Museum of Art and Industry in former Art Deco swimming baths, Roubaix
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Logport Logistics Centre in Duisberg, creating the world’s biggest inland port on a derelict and contaminated site.
Conversion of the Zeche Zollverein former coal mine and coking plant to a design and culture centre, museum and tourist attraction.
Integrated urban regeneration in the Dortmund Nordstadt area
Norte Leixões port developments
Development strategy for the footwear industry with associated cluster initiatives
Ermida Bridge across the river Duoro
North East England
Iconic cultural projects linked to urban regeneration have been successful in generating cultural employment as well as promoting tourism and boosting regional confidence
Centres of excellence in renewable energy and process industries, supporting local industries and becoming national institutions
Sachsen-Anhalt
Technology and Founders’ Centre Halle with three core technology centres encouraging start-ups and innovation
Establishment of the Zellstoff Stendal wood pulp plant employing 600 people on the site of a cancelled nuclear power station
Community Initiative URBAN Halle supporting SME through urban regeneration
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 121 LSE
Identifying bad projects is easy in most regions as there are projects which failed or were
well known as a waste of money, although given the large numbers of projects in a typical
region, it is inevitable that there will be some failures. In many cases this was down to bad
project design and management, but it is also important to note that where projects are
experimental, some failure is to be expected and should be regarded as normal.
EQ3b: What conclusions can be drawn for improving ERDF programme design,
implementation, results-based management, achievements?
The research provides several suggestions for improving the ability of future programmes to
deliver the intended achievements and to address regional needs effectively. This section
examines the potential lessons from the evaluation for the principal elements of Cohesion
policy.
Programme design
All case studies highlighted the value of developing a strategy, involving – to different
degrees – the analysis of regional needs and challenges, a vision for the future, and the
articulation of a multiannual development plan with clear objectives to which relevant
partners subscribed. Specific lessons include the following,
Introduce scenario-thinking - Regions need to invest in professionalised strategic
planning and to carry out research on the current and future needs of the region,
intended to identify the potential opportunities that can be realised through
targeted support. The development of the regional strategy should be underpinned
by scenario building - as proposed for smart specialisation strategies - and ensure
that projected scenarios are exposed to external challenge over their relevance
and feasibility.
Build in contingency plans - Strategies need to be flexible to cope with changes of
needs arising from external shocks or unexpected opportunities. Strategic planning
needs to incorporate some sensitivity analysis to factors such as economic change
and anticipate contingency plans associated with the main potential challenges
detected at planning stage.
A long-term approach to competitiveness to ensure resilience - Critical for many
regions is support for changes in the economic base of the region to render it more
resilient to economic shocks. Whilst infrastructure may still be needed in some
regions and the support to economic diversification through tourism has been a
useful medium-term response for lagging regions, regions should be encouraged to
focus more on projects that enhance entrepreneurship and innovation.
Plan in detail to ensure that expectations are realistic - Regions need to be
realistic about timescales in their strategies, recognising that change may take
place over more than one programme cycle (and hence there is a need for
continuity), and they should not be overambitious about what can be achieved
within a seven-year programme, especially with limited resources. Strategic
planning has to be explicit about the timescales associated with objectives.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 122 LSE
Regions should also recognise the often small relative financial scale of ERDF
programmes, and frame expectations and targets accordingly.
Recognise the constraints represented by the local context - Regional strategies
need to take into account that structural adjustment is a societal as well as an
economic process. This requires the process of strategy development
systematically to take account of the influence on performance of relevant
societal or cultural constraints, and to build in institutional and social measures to
address cultural, political or institutional conservatism and culture change. In
some cases, affecting the background cultural and societal context of regions
would be beyond the scope of the programmes: where this is the case, the
programmes strategies should explicitly acknowledge the factors constraining
future implementation and adapt strategies accordingly.
Plan with the knowledge of what other investment programmes are being
implemented in the region – Regional authorities do not always have a vision of
the full range of investments that are realised in the region by the national
government and, vice versa, national ministries and government authorities tend
to view their investments from a sectoral rather than territorial perspective. To
ensure that the ERDF programmes are complementary and synergic with each other
(e.g. where both ROPs and NOPs invest in a given region), and with domestic
spending programmes, existing multi-level dialogue and monitoring systems will
have to be improved to ensure effective coordination of that the diverse
investment flows to a given region. ERDF programmes should describe how existing
systems meet this need and what will be done to ensure that synergy is achieved
where current systems are not adequate.
Strategic planning
Regional authorities and Member States should invest in generating capacity for strategy
development, such that programme authorities are able to: (i) think long term, for instance
with structured scenario-planning; (ii) communicate and debate openly strategic options
with stakeholders, to achieve a more transparent and effective synthesis between evidence
and political mediation; (iii) recognise that policy efforts need to be long-term and thus
frame the seven-year planning of ERDF within a wider programming effort (for instance
within wider regional strategies); and at the same time (iv) accept that regional conditions
and need can change abruptly, requiring programmes to be able to respond to change (this
can be achieved via the existing monitoring and reporting practices, shifting their focus
from financial management to results); (v) capture the different societal and institutional
facets of economic development, interacting synergetically with other policies and
spending programmes, in acknowledgement of the limited scale and scope of the ERDF and
Cohesion Fund.
There is sometimes a temptation to think that economic or regional development is a task
for one or two programme periods. More realistically, 20-30 years are likely to be needed
for successful restructuring processes, with the implication that strategic plans need to
extend beyond the time-span of a Cohesion policy programme. Given the time horizons
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 123 LSE
dictated by the seven-year period of the EU Financial Framework and the corresponding
regulations, a longer time-span is politically difficult. But the advantages of continuity in
strategy (for example in Basilicata, at least during the first two programme periods which,
in turn, drew on strategic orientations already in place from the 1980s), point to the need
for a longer-term perspective. Moreover, ‘regional development’ is a permanent challenge,
because of the enduring locational disadvantages of certain regions, whereas favoured
agglomerations usually have a more dynamic and self-sustained economic development
process
Implementation
The rapid creation and availability of administrative expertise for managing EU funding was
particularly important in less-developed regions (e.g. Algarve, Dytiki Ellada, Galicia) and
for major projects. It had the side-effect of increasing training and exposure to
international practice. However, deficits in expertise were encountered in regions of all
types, notably among implementing bodies such as municipalities and socio-economic
partners, and a shortage of technical skills for specialized measures and projects.
The ability of programmes to deliver the intended achievements could be improved through
the use of technical expertise from outside the administration in the appraisal and
selection of projects. This will be particularly critical in the 2014-20 programme period
given the emphasis on specialist areas, such as research and innovation or the green
economy. Further, strategic decisions on investment choices and assessment of likely
achievements need explicitly to: (i) recognise the need to budget for maintenance of
infrastructure and activities funded and to ascertain whether the necessary operational
costs can be met; (ii) avoid overprovision of certain forms of intervention, either through
building in excessive capacity or a proliferation of developments across a region; (iii)
accompany investment in innovation with assessment of the appropriate balance of public
and private sector support; (iv) ensure that effective support for enterprise embodies and a
systemic approach, combining finance capital, incubation, business advice, and culture
change, and, crucially, ensuring that the different needs of different types of firms are met
(via different combinations of tools); (v) be explicit about the fact that intervention in
more innovative fields, present an inevitable degree of likely failure, but estimate this at
the outset; and, lastly, integrate community development activities within place-based
regeneration strategies. Two specific lessons are to:
Utilise technical expertise to appraise the worthiness of projects - For project
selection processes relating to calls for proposals, regions should explicitly
consider a range of options and be aware of ‘good practice’ scoring systems,
drawing on experts in the relevant field. Managing authorities or implementing
bodies should have access to experts able to give advice to projects on how to
improve project design and ensure results are met. This will be more critical in the
2014-20 period given the specialist interventions in areas such as research and
innovation, the green economy and financial instruments.
Ensure that projects are sustainable long-term via cost-benefit analyses, risk
assessment and contingency planning - Regions should invest in and use cost-
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 124 LSE
benefit analysis more systematically for projects which are strategic, with full
life-cycle costs, including operational running and maintenance costs, being
considered, risk assessment and contingency planning.
A major difficulty, reported in almost all regions was the fragmentation of funding across
too many types of interventions or projects. Especially in the early periods, programmes
were characterised by too many projects targeted at local needs; decisions were governed
by political interests with insufficient regard to value-for-money or overall programme
effectiveness. Over time, in some regions, there was recognition of the need to
concentrate funding on fewer and larger projects, driven by more effective project
selection that emphasised quality, together with and monitoring systems to ensure that the
expected outcomes were achieved. Flagship or ‘spearhead’ projects also allowed critical
mass to be achieved in making changes (Itä-Suomi, North-East England). Specific lessons
are:
Where resources are minor, focus on game-changing projects - Particularly
where the ERDF resources are minor compared with wider public spending
programmes implemented in the region, at least a large part of the available
resources should be assigned to major, well-justified, strategic projects which
have the potential to be game-changing, and should be selective about the kinds of
projects to be implemented in particular localities. The European Commission, as
well as national authorities, have an important role in ‘protecting’ regional
authorities from the pressure to support large numbers of local projects that may
be politically desirable to municipalities, but have limited strategic economic
rationale.
Plan and monitor closely composite territorial projects - Elsewhere, care should
be taken to ensure that the size of projects fits with the aims of the interventions
funded, and that where achievements are to be realised through the joint effect
of aggregations of projects that there are adequate project design, delivery and
monitoring capabilities, to ensure that the projects or their portions are
implemented as planned and with the sequencing foreseen (notably where the
likelihood of a project to achieve its goals are linked to other projects doing so).
Continuity of the key players in a development effort can also be an important success
factor, as was the case in Burgenland and, at least during the first two programme periods,
in Basilicata. This enables the build-up of tacit knowledge and communication via short
routes, and is particularly important where funding packages are more complex, as is often
the case with EU funding. There are bound to be associated risks of lock-in and limited
receptiveness to policy innovation. Here, however, a task for the Commission is to
champion and stimulate ‘innovative measures’, including by exchange of experience.
Results-orientation and achievements
Over successive programme periods, programmes have often been assembled as vehicles to
draw down funding for specific projects or types of projects. They were frequently only
loosely connected with a high-level vision relating to growth or regional convergence
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 125 LSE
and/or were unclear about how objectives were to be realised. There is clearly a need for
objective-setting to establish the logic for intervention with reference to outcomes. More
fundamentally, however, this needs to be embedded in a development model
demonstrating an understanding of how the regional economy functions and how EU-funded
interventions ‘fit’ with development patterns, trends and factors.
To improve the results-orientation of programmes, regions should develop programming
approaches underpinned explicitly by underlying development theories. This requires a new
way of thinking about policy and thus targeted capacity building. Such approaches should
identify and address necessary conditions and the time-bound targets to be achieved. More
emphasis should also be placed on evaluation, including more fieldwork-based, grass-roots
evaluation to supplement and improve the quality of programme monitoring. Monitoring
systems have improved over time in their ability to track outputs (less so results, such as
jobs created), but the information is still mixed across policy areas and themes both in
availability and quality. For key policy areas, monitoring information should be
supplemented with ad hoc surveys carried out at periodic time intervals.
Ex post evaluation should become a routine activity of programme authorities (to be
supported by ad hoc regulatory provisions), in addition to the evaluative work undertaken
by the Commission which, by nature, cannot provide detailed and specific territorial
assessments. In addition, the emphasis of evaluation work should shift from financial and
procedural aspects, to effectiveness and utility. Particularly for infrastructure projects, in
order to ensure that projects continue to deliver dividends years after they have been
realised and that the infrastructure is maintained, programme authorities should carry out
or commission cost-benefit analysis of projects embracing their full life-cycle.
Investment choices and achievements
The lessons from investment choices and the associated achievements were fivefold. First,
in a number of regions, ERDF was used to support capital investments even though there
were insufficient funds available for their effective maintenance. Consequently facilities
were left unused, or remedial work needed to be undertaken at a later date. Examples
include water purification plants in Andalucía and Campania where operational or
maintenance costs were not budgeted for, and transport infrastructures in Campania which
are being utilised below capacity, although they are now more fully used and contribute to
easing congestion elsewhere. Cultural facilities also presented problems unless operating
budgets were identified at the outset. It is worth noting that not every region can sustain
an airport or can justify extensive connections to central areas, and that it is therefore
incumbent on those planning programmes to concentrate resources on other investment
that fit the region more closely.
Second, the scale of achievements was influenced by regional investment choices involving
overprovision, usually in forms of infrastructure, with the result that output achievements
are good, but usage and hence the results are low. Reasons include an airport that is much
bigger than needed (Malaga in Andalucía), dual-carriageway roads that are underused
(Norte), or innovation centres in every town when the demand is not apparent in all places.
The rationale might be that these developments are future-proofed, in the sense that the
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 126 LSE
airport will be able to absorb growth for the next twenty years, but this choice has an
opportunity cost and implies less funding for other measures such as support for
entrepreneurship or innovation. Ireland devoted some of its ERDF to the development of
regional airports, but acknowledged in 2011 that there was over-provision and insufficient
resources to maintain all eight. Two of them (Galway and Sligo) have effectively since
been closed to commercial aviation by the withdrawal of government subsidy.
Third, in many regions, particularly where R&D is low, regions have devoted the majority of
their innovation support to building up research capacity in the universities and public
sector. This is an essential part of the development of an effective regional innovation
system, but without parallel effort devoted to private sector innovation capacity there is
the risk that impact is limited and the higher levels of public R&D can only be supported by
continued ERDF subsidy. Expectations that investment in universities will automatically lead
to spin-offs are too often disappointed.
Fourth, as with innovation, regions experienced more success at promoting enterprise
where integrated strategies were developed that addressed all the barriers and problems
experienced by different types of entrepreneurs, including the cultural attitudes towards
entrepreneurship, especially among young people. Schemes that provided multiple forms of
capital for different niches, training alongside incubator facilities etc were more successful.
However, in some cases, entrepreneurship measures could not deliver the intended results,
without the support of other policies (e.g. labour market reform, legality and public order)
Such complementary measures would have been expected to affect some of the underlying
factors affecting the performance of entrepreneurial support measures, such as the weight
of the hidden economy, of illegal activities, or of an inefficient credit market etc..
Lastly, regions experienced difficulties reaching targets for achievements with community
development activities, especially where such activities were small and fragmented, even if
they were beneficial to the community concerned. Faced with limited resources, the
concentration of community development in integrated programmes for target communities
or places produced better results.
8.5 Implications for the future development of Cohesion policy
The study provides clear evidence to support the direction of Cohesion policy in 2014-20,
specifically with respect to the emphasis on conditionalities, the new results-orientation,
the enhanced performance framework and the promotion of capacity-building both as a
thematic priority and the creation of administrative capacity units in DG Regio and DG
EMPL. These are areas where our findings show successive generations of programmes to
have been deficient. However, while the principles of these changes are supported by the
research, the practical obstacles are significant.
First, the study demonstrates that changing policy priorities and management practices
takes a long time, certainly more than one programme period. The resistance by some
Member States to the new regulations for 2014-20 as part of the negotiations, and the
caution on the part of programme authorities in responding to the Commission’s
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 127 LSE
expectations suggests that achieving the necessary revolutionary change in performance
under the new programmes will be difficult.
Second, the study has identified a long list of lessons that apply to every stage of the
programme cycle. They imply deficits in the conceptual approach to programming,
strategic planning techniques, analytical methods to support project selection, and the
quality or focus of monitoring and evaluation. This implies a major effort to build
administrative capacity and promote learning.
Of all the changes required, perhaps the most important is to encourage and support a
more sophisticated approach to long-term strategic analysis and planning, drawing on
theory and practice in ways that challenge conventional thinking and rooted in a detailed
understanding of the distinctive strengths and weaknesses of individual regions. The
recommended approach to smart specialisation for post-2014 programming is a good start,
but it presupposes a level of competence and experience that (this study suggests) does not
exist everywhere. While the current programming phase should take at least some steps
forward in improving the performance of programmes, a more realistic timescale for
implementing the lessons of this study is to look forward to the post-2020 programme
period and a strategy to raise awareness and invest in knowledge, skills and expertise.
Carrying out this kind of long-term study in each Member State could provide a road-map on
what Cohesion policy has achieved (or not) in individual countries and regions, where the
problems lie and how specific improvements might be achieved.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 128 LSE
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 129 LSE
9. ANNEX 1: SUMMARIES OF REGIONAL NEEDS
9.1 Regions facing major underdevelopment and endowment deficiencies
Dytiki Ellada was and to a large extent remains a dual region: the urbanised, high
population density core has for years suffered problems of deindustrialisation and economic
decline, while the periphery (predominantly agricultural and sparsely populated areas) has
experienced more fundamental problems of development, with limited economic and
population dynamism and a weak industrial and infrastructure base. In the early 1980s, the
region’s economy was mainly based on low productivity agricultural activities (almost 30
percent of the regional GDP) and manufacturing (25 percent), disparities and inequalities
between the region’s areas (rural and urban), low per-capita income, low employment
rates in high added-value sectors, low-skilled workforce, strong signs of deindustrialisation,
inadequate infrastructure for industrial development, small size of enterprises, lack of
basic services (e.g. primary infrastructure), absence of entrepreneurial culture and
innovation, lack of motorway and basic infrastructure, reduced intra- and inter-regional
connectivity, lack of railway and airport systems, insufficient water supply – sewerage
networks, lack of solid waste management infrastructure and significant shortcomings in
school and health infrastructure. Recent years have seen a significant improvement in
transport infrastructure and connectivity, although the wider social, economic and
demographic problems associated with the region in past decades largely persist today –
and have been intensified with the financial and fiscal crisis of the last five years. Today
Dytiki Ellada remains one of the most undeveloped regions of Greece.
Campania has traditionally lagged behind the Centre-North of Italy, with one of the lowest
rates of GDP per capita in the country. Demographic disequilibria between the main urban
conurbation of Naples and the coastal areas and the more rural hinterland have widened
over the study period. Territorial disequilibria continue to affect other phenomena:
accessibility from outside and mobility within the region; availability of social and health
services, with congestion in coastal areas and deficiencies in internal areas; and
environmental deterioration and risks, with different problems affecting different areas
(e.g. urban waste emergencies in Naples and Caserta only). Throughout the study period,
the region has consistently experienced high rates of poverty, unemployment and
worklessness, especially among women and young people, with a high rate of young people
not in employment, education or training. Serious social problems have historically affected
and continue to affect the region, particularly organised crime in some parts of the regional
territory. Environmental issues - soil erosion along coasts and rivers, industrial site
contamination, water body quality, and urban and industrial waste management – have
remained severe throughout the period reviewed. Over the study period, the gap between
the GDP per capita of the region and of Italy has widened as the region has grown even
more slowly than the country as a whole, with only marginal improvements in its GDP,
production base and employment, resulting from diverging trends during the sub-periods. At
the end of a decade of growth, the crisis of the early 1990s compounded the effects of the
closing-down of large (especially public) industrial firms and the end of the Special
Intervention. The region fully recovered during the second half of the 1990s, when small
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 130 LSE
firms localised in industrial clusters showed a potential for growth, export and
employment. However, this potential was eroded during the 2000s, especially in traditional
industries (e.g. garment, footwear), due to competition from East Asia, and regional GDP
stagnated even before the recent economic crisis hit (with severe consequences).
Norte at the end of the 1980s lacked basic infrastructures and social amenities, a situation
exacerbated by strong internal territorial disparities (east/west) and a situation of
peripherality compared to the core of Europe. This meant external diseconomies and a
limited quality of life. The most critical situation in terms of development opportunities lay
in human resource capabilities: the lowest level of schooling in the country, high drop-out
levels, incipient professional training, the lowest rates in terms of secondary and university
attendance and low R&D investment. Economically, the region was facing a number of
challenges – such as the textile trade liberalisation in the WTO, the increased competition
of the Single Market, and later, EU eastern enlargement and change of monetary policy.
These challenges meant that the region had to face a considerable need for restructuring of
an economic fabric largely dominated by the agricultural sector and small and micro firms.
Today Norte has made significant progress in relation to basic infrastructure endowment
(environmental and social infrastructure), education levels, overall accessibility and infra-
regional connectivity, but fundamental weaknesses in the economy remain, as shown by the
poor resilience to the joint effects of globalisation, the effects of the adoption of the Euro
and the recent financial crisis, which have caused the region to regress.
In the late 1980s, Andalucía was one of the poorest regions in Spain with high
unemployment levels, low education levels, and a lack of efficient transport and
environmental infrastructure (regarding water supply, distribution and purification). Today,
a large part of these needs have been met. Andalucía possesses transport infrastructures
comparable to those in many regions of the most developed European countries. The main
remaining needs in the environmental field are those related to wastewater treatment and
purification in small and medium-sized municipalities. But on the whole, deficiencies have
been reduced in the last decades and Andalucía has embraced a convergence process with
European standards (GDP pc increased from 59 percent of the EU15 average in 1996 to 66
percent in 2007) and experienced unprecedented employment creation (unemployment
decreased from 32 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 2007). However, since 2007 the
Andalucía economy has been adversely affected by a serious financial and real estate crisis,
and the unemployment rate has again grown to over 30 percent. Nevertheless, important
weaknesses remain, such as the lack of an entrepreneurial culture, the small average
business size, underinvestment in R&D and innovation in the private sector. In spite of some
interesting industrial developments (agri-food, aeronautical, ITC, renewable energy), the
industrial base of the Andalucía economy remains limited.
Basilicata - In 1988, Basilicata was the poorest region in Italy, with a GDP per head of just
over 63 percent of the national average. It faced particular structural challenges due to
geological instability, mountainous terrain and geographic peripherality, and a relatively
small population dispersed over many small towns and villages. The region was
economically peripheral, with poor road, rail and airport connections to the rest of Italy
and abroad. It also lacked urban or industrial agglomerations. With the highest proportion
of employment in agriculture and the lowest proportion of services, the employment rate
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 131 LSE
was one of the lowest in the country, especially among women; the unemployment rate was
almost 19 percent, and educational attainment was below the national average. The region
was heavily dependent on external subsidies, had major deficiencies in entrepreneurship
and the skills necessary for sustainable industrial development, and was not adequately
exploiting its natural and cultural assets. Parts of the region were still underdeveloped,
lacking basic infrastructures and services. At the time of the first Structural Funds
programme in 1989, Basilicata was embarking on a period of economic growth, stimulated
by massive reconstruction aid following the 1980 earthquake, as well as other special
interventions by the national government, contributing to the attraction of major firms
(e.g. Fiat and Barilla). However, while the region made some progress in addressing its
structural problems – notably with the provision of basic services and development of
tourism – its performance according to indicators such as new firm formation, SME
development and innovation has been weak. The 2000s was generally a period of relative
slowdown and declining competitiveness; industrial production declined by almost 12
percent between 2002 and 2004 due particularly to the crisis in Fiat and the stuffed
furniture districts. The current economic crisis has imposed renewed pressure on the
region, and it has suffered badly due to lack of its dependence a limited number of sectors,
and outmigration of the young and skilled. Overall, thus, even though during the period
since 1989 the region has converged economically, many of the key structural problems
remain, notably under-representation in high-added value industrial sectors, and (despite
progress) infrastructure deficits (particularly transport and social infrastructure).
In 1989, Ireland still had one of the lowest per capita incomes in the EU. Major challenges
at that time included the need to modernise infrastructure, develop indigenous industry
and support market diversification, and tackle endemic unemployment. The country had
very low per-capita income and output levels relative to other European countries,
reflective of low productivity, high population dependency (in effect a low employment
rate) and a weak industrial base; a very low labour demand, resulting in high short- and
long-term unemployment and substantial emigration; a legacy of stark budgetary
imbalances resulting in a high national debt; weak physical infrastructure in need of
substantial upgrade and improvement, but with little prospect of such investment in the
prevailing budgetary context; a weak indigenous industrial structure constrained by
geographical peripherality from large international markets, underdeveloped human
resources, skills and capabilities, and focused in low-value sectors with limited inherent
international competitive advantages; and low levels of investment in R&D and innovation.
Over the subsequent programme periods, the Irish economy grew rapidly, although not
consistently, experienced substantial sectoral and structural change, addressed long-
standing infrastructural deficits, transformed its labour market and saw very substantial
increases in living standards. Before the present crisis took hold in 2008, Ireland’s GDP per
capita was among the highest levels in the EU.
9.2 Region facing transition or structural adjustment
Since the German unification Sachsen-Anhalt has been dealing with the implications of the
transition to the market economy. This has caused a number of structural peculiarities
which have had an impact on the region’s development prospects and potential: a legacy of
large uncompetitive industrial trusts (oriented to the COMECON market, with low levels and
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 132 LSE
productivity, obsolete fixed assets and scarce R&D propensity), a marginalised SME sector,
sectoral specialisation on the chemical industry and mining (with the consequent
environmental implications), and a vastly neglected infrastructure. The fall of the
communist regime led to de-industrialisation and massive layoffs, which were tackled with
job creation, retirement and flexible labour schemes, social security, whilst at the same
time investing in infrastructures and industrial assets. Whilst the social security and job
schemes prevented large-scale social problems, and notwithstanding the considerable
improvements in the region’s environmental situation, external image and connectivity,
Sachsen-Anhalt remains hampered in its development by fundamental shortcomings, such as
a lack of entrepreneurial culture, low R&D and innovation propensity, poverty and
outmigration.
Nord-Pas-de-Calais is one of the European regions that contributed substantially to the
industrial revolution and experienced a strong industrial development until the middle of
the 20th century. This development was mainly based on mining, steel, metallurgy and
textile industries and was accompanied by a dynamic demographic and urban growth. In the
1970s, the region was strongly hit by the then economic crisis, resulting in the decline of all
mining activities and a major recession in other industries. This led to the closure of
hundreds of enterprises and extensive layoffs. As in other European regions facing a
conversion process, Nord-Pas-de-Calais had to accommodate major structural difficulties
including the concentration of activities on a few economic sectors, limited development of
services, a workforce and training system focused on industrial activities, strong
dependence of SMEs on large companies, and a limited entrepreneurship and innovation
culture. From an environmental perspective, the region also suffered from pollution and/or
declining industries that had a significant impact on the land and on the urban fabric.
In Nordrhein-Westfalen, ERDF interventions have been concentrated on the Ruhrgebiet
area for most of the period since 1989. Strongly dominated by coal and steel industries, the
Ruhrgebiet suffered from the acceleration in the decline of these industries in the 1970s.
One of the main consequences was rising unemployment rates, but the legacy of the old
industries included large areas of derelict land in cities and associated environmental risks.
Today, the Ruhrgebiet has undergone fundamental structural change, but the old industries
have not only become much smaller, but also competitive again. SMEs and business-
oriented services have developed dynamically, and the structure has shifted towards more
innovative and technology-intensive sectors. Productivity has developed well, but
unemployment rates remain high. R&D performance is improving, the environmental
situation has improved, and the problem of wasteland has been significantly reduced.
However, the educational endowment is below national levels, and the concentration of
several overlapping problems in specific parts of the cities has increasingly become a
problem. Unemployment and specifically long-term unemployment remain problematic.
North East England has suffered from a low level of output for many decades and has
consistently lagged behind the UK average in gross value added, as well as the EU GDP
average. Employment in the region fell dramatically in the early 1980s as manufacturing
shrank in the recession. There was slow recovery from the late 1980s, followed by another
dip in the early 1990s recession. From 2000 the North East saw modest employment growth
but overall has performed worse than the UK since 1985. The narrowing of the gap with the
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 133 LSE
rest of the UK between 2000 and 2005 gave some confidence to the region, but the
situation has deteriorated again since then. Overall activity rates at 74.7 percent (of 16-64
year olds) remain well below the UK average. Sectorally, the primary industries and most
manufacturing sectors have continued to decline during the period, the main exceptions
during the 1990s being motor vehicles and rubber and plastic products. Core industries such
as metal fabrication, machinery, chemicals, and clothing all declined. The main growth
opportunities were in consumer services, public services and business services, although the
latter grew more slowly than the national picture. Knowledge intensive business services
grew by 38% in the 1990s whereas the national growth in the same period was 79%. The
North East had the slowest rate of growth of any UK region at that time. Productivity levels
in 2002 were also lower than the national level for almost all industries. The region’s
history in large scale mining and manufacturing, followed by decades of encouragement of
branch plants led to a low proportion of employment in small firms. Firm formation rates
have been kept low by low levels of capital availability, low proportions of managerial and
highly educated people, limited local markets for business services and a lagging economy.
Birth rates of businesses remained low through the 2000s, mainly below 70% of the national
average, although with a spike upwards in 2007. However, recent research suggests that
the formation rate of high-growth firms during the early 2000s was similar to the national
average. It is the lower birth rate among the mass of firms which has had the greatest
impact on employment levels. The region has also lagged badly on measures of innovation,
notably in the level of R&D activity. One consequence of the industrial restructuring away
from traditional heavy industry has been a high level of derelict land needing reclamation,
some of which in central urban locations offered good locations for future industrial
development. In 1988, central government estimated there were around 5,900 hectares of
derelict land in the North East of which 4,700 justified reclamation. This amounted to
14.6% of the estimated total for England. By 1993 that total had fallen to 5,100 hectares
after 1,600 hectares had been reclaimed, but more had been added. Using a potentially
different definition in 2002 the North East had 3,800 hectares of derelict land which fell
further to 2,660 hectares in 2007, by which time the North East only accounted for 7.9% of
all the derelict land in England. This set of issues has been the focus of recent
programmes: low GVA; low productivity; low activity rates and high unemployment; poor
performance in growth sectors; low firm formation rates; and low levels of innovation. The
region also scores badly on wider indicators of social deprivation, and a need for
regeneration, but these have been less emphasised in the current programme. These
problems still exist though, especially in areas such as South East Northumberland, East
Durham and Teesside.
9.3 Rural or peripheral regions facing reconversion, agricultural modernisation and economic diversification
Two decades ago, Galicia was a peripheral region with poor external accessibility and
internal connectivity, strongly dependent on low productivity primary sectors (agriculture
and fishing) and was one of the poorest regions in Spain. A large proportion of the
population lived scattered in rural areas without basic services (communications, phone
lines, etc.). The region lacked efficient transport and environmental infrastructure and had
low levels of educational attainment and technological knowledge, high unemployment and
a fragmented entrepreneurial system based on small family-owned companies. On top of
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 134 LSE
this, a process of adjustment in traditional activities such as shipbuilding and the chemical
industry raised serious concerns about the future. These deficiencies have been reduced
over the last twenty years. Galicia has converged with the EU-15, reducing its GDP per
capita gap by 8.7 percentage points from 50 to 59.5 percent (73.8 per cent if compensating
for the differences in prices between countries with purchasing power standards).
Burgenland, on the other hand, whilst compared with other regions it lies at the heart of
Europe, it has struggled historically with the typical problems of a rural agrarian region,
exacerbated by its location at the eastern periphery of Austria and by the absence of
conurbations. Due to the lack of employment opportunities, the participation rates
remained well below the already-low average in Austria throughout the period observed,
resulting in migration from the region. At the outset of Austria’s accession to the EU, the
region had deficiencies in modern business infrastructure, considerable internal disparities,
accessibility deficiencies (particularly from the southern part of the province to the capital
and poor connections to the national transport network). From the opening up of Eastern
Europe and the forthcoming EU enlargement, Burgenland experienced increased pressure
on innovation and the internationalisation of the economy. Following Austria’s EU-accession
and in the wake of Austria's good overall economic performance, which allowed a relatively
stable development in the period of financial crisis from 2008, a process of catch-up
actually took place compared to the EU15. Burgenland closed the gap, moving from 71
percent (1995) to 81 percent (2008) of the EU15 GDP per head. On a national level,
Burgenland kept pace with Austrian national growth rates. Today, investment levels in
Burgenland are well above average, as are the business start-up rates. It has been possible
to develop a number of strengths, particularly in the renewable energy sector and in
specific niches such as optoelectronics. It has been possible to revive tourism and reduce
the dependency on employment in agriculture. The manufacturing sector, however, is
marked by a lack of R&D thrust. R&D and innovation still represents a major challenge as
the combination of EU-enlargement, internationalisation and technological change have
increased the need in companies for capability and improved absorptive capacity in R&D.
Overall, an economic transformation has occurred. Nevertheless, the basic needs of the
region to create new jobs and reduce the number of commuters still exist. They are
essentially permanent challenges that should be regarded in the context of missing
agglomeration advantages. With increasing demand for innovative regional capacities and
the trend of urbanisation, Burgenland is at risk of remaining ‘the region in between’ -
between the cities of Vienna, Graz and western Hungarian cities. This requires more
strategies directed at developing functional regions that extend beyond administrative
boundaries and make greater use of the opportunities of urban areas for Burgenland. The
whole economic fabric is still fragile.
Lastly, Itä-Suomi has for a long time been an archetypical example of a problem region in
the Finnish and Nordic context. This region has lost population as a result of ongoing out-
migration, and at the same time it has lagged behind the national averages in terms of
conventional indicators of socio-economic development such as GDP per capita and
unemployment rate. These problems reflect the region’s peripherality: weak accessibility in
both Finnish and EU contexts, low population density, a non-diversified production
structure still highly reliant on the primary sector, territorial specificities (such as vast
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 135 LSE
forests, peripheral location at the external border of the European Union, sparse
population, and long distances between its few and small urban centres), a productive
fabric characterised by small companies, generally oriented towards the domestic markets.
All these characteristics meant that Itä-Suomi has not been able to participate in and
benefit from the wider Finnish movement towards knowledge-based industrial restructuring
and growth during the ‘boom years’ of the 1990s. Although performing relatively well in a
European context, economic performance in Itä-Suomi has continuously lagged behind the
Finnish average, resulting in GDP per capita divergence between Itä-Suomi and Finland as a
whole, which is now greater than at the beginning of the 1990s. Over the years, the region
has experienced an ongoing spatial concentration of economic activities and population in
the largest centres, which has also meant a progressive thinning-out of population in rural
areas. Since 1995, these processes have not changed to any significant extent.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 136 LSE
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 137 LSE
10. ANNEX 2: METHODS AND DATA
The methodology and data sources utilised for the research are explained in detail in the
project’s Inception and First Intermediate Reports, but a summary illustration of the main
methodological and data aspects of the research is provided below.
Desk-research
The study has relied on extensive desk-research of primary and secondary sources,
including programme documentation such as: programme documents (and where applicable
complements); annual and final implementation reports; evaluation documents; monitoring
data held in different programme/public investment databases; independent studies and
academic sources. The full list of sources utilised for each case study can be found in the
case study reports, notably in the Annexes V (overview of sources used) and VI (references)
at the end of each report. Data on the evolution of needs in the regions and for the
econometric analysis was also drawn from Cambridge Econometrics’ European Regional
database, as well as from Eurostat and national statistics institutes’ databases.
Interviews
Each case study comprised the undertaking of in-depth, mainly face-to-face, semis-
structured interviews with a wide range of privileged observers, notably: strategic and
operational actors actively involved in the policy (programme and measure managers),
external observers such as academics and evaluators, and a sample group of policy
recipients and other stakeholders (such as environmental groups or other associations).
Interviewees typically represented regional, local, but also national and European levels.
The full list of interviewees is reported in each case study report in the reports’ Annex IV
(list of interviewees), but numbers ranged from a minimum of 20 in Burgenland, to a
maximum of circa 70 in Campania (see table below for more detail). The minimum number
of interviews to be undertaken was calibrated based on the number of programme periods
and programmes to be covered (whether also national or only regional), as well as in
consideration of whether the case study also required coverage of Cohesion Fund
investments and of the institutional setting of each region.
Objective 1 / Convergence Phasing–in/out Objective 2 / RCE
Burgenland (20)
Itä-Suomi (27)
Nord-Pas-de-Calais (38) Aquitaine (33)
Sachsen-Anhalt (37) Nordrhein-Westfalen (25)
Dytiki Ellada (48)
Ireland (31)
Campania (73) Basilicata (38)
Norte (36) Algarve (29)
Andalucía (36), Galicia (38)
North-East England (35)
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 138 LSE
Online survey
An online questionnaire was administered to a selected group of recipients for each case
study. This included the interviewees, plus: local authority contacts; firms; regional and
local social partners, and third-sector organisations; trade unions; and other interest
groups. The number of people invited to the survey varied across case studies - ranging
from c. 170 North-East England to c. 800 in Campania (see table below) – as did the
response rates, across both case studies and questions (as the survey covered all
programme periods, and not all actors were involved in all periods, not all questions were
applicable to all respondents and not all respondents answered all questions). A summary of
the metrics and main messages emerged from the online survey is provided in the Annex VII
of each case study.
Objective 1 / Convergence Phasing–in/out Objective 2 / RCE
Burgenland (241)
Itä-Suomi (374)
Nord-Pas-de-Calais (339) Aquitaine (308)
Sachsen-Anhalt (314) Nordrhein-Westfalen (247)
Dytiki Ellada (253)
Ireland (450)
Campania (806) Basilicata (270)
Norte (528) Algarve (354)
Andalucía (499) Galicia (518)
North-East England (171)
Regional Workshop
Each regional team organised a workshop to disseminate and discuss the preliminary
findings of the case study research, validate these and obtain further insights. Workshops
were held in the 15 regions during the summer/autumn 2012. The list of participants is
provided in Annex VIII of case study reports.
Expenditure analysis
The analysis presented in Chapter 4 and also parts of the analysis included in Chapter 7,
draws from an exercise of gathering and reclassification of expenditure data undertaken by
the regional teams. Reclassified date was analysed by the core team (LSE), who produced
the diagrams and figures presented in the Chapters 4 (analysis of expenditure) of the
current Final Report and case study reports.
The classification of expenditure was undertaken based on a set of seventeen categories of
expenditure, comprising: innovation, entrepreneurship and industrial development,
information society, transport, energy, environmental protection and risk prevention,
tourism, culture, urban and rural regeneration, increasing the adaptability of workers and
firms, enterprises and entrepreneurs, improving access to employment and sustainability,
improving the social inclusion of less-favoured persons, improving human capital,
investment in social infrastructure, mobilisation for reforms in the fields of employment
and inclusion, strengthening institutional capacity at national, regional and local level,
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 139 LSE
reduction of additional costs hindering the outermost regions development and technical
assistance. These categories could then be aggregated under the 8 themes utilised as the
main analytical thread for the research.
Data on expenditure were collected for each region from their respective date of EU
accession, with the limitations illustrated in the table below. In some cases, for instance in
relation to the expenditure in the regions of multi-regional and national OPs, it has not
been possible to acquire actual expenditure data. In such cases, the regional teams
provided estimates of expenditure based on financial allocations and population shares or
other criteria.
Case Study Programmes covered
Information gaps
Additional info Last year tracked (for 2007-2013)
Austria - Burgenland
ROPs only
No gaps - 2010
Finland - Itä-Suomi
ROPs only
No gaps - 2011
France - Aquitaine
ROPs only
Few 1989-1993 ROP measures missing data. Partial data only on expenditure in 2000-2006. ERDF data only for 2007-2013.
Total expenditure for 2000-2006 includes also other programmes (some Community Initiatives).
Unknown
France - Nord-Pas-de-Calais
ROPs only
No gaps. ERDF data only for 2007-2013.
- 2010
Germany - Nordrhein-Westfalen
ROPs only
ERDF data only. - 2010
Germany - Sachsen-Anhalt
1989-1993 and 1994-1999 ROPs; 2000-2006 and 2007-2013: ROPs and NOPs Transport.
Expenditure data in the region from the NOPs not available for 1989-1993 and 1994-1999. Partial NOPs data for 2000-2006 and 2007-2013.
- 2011
Greece - Dytiki-Ellada
ROPs and NOPs + Cohesion Fund
No information on 1989-1993 NOP expenditure in the region. Cohesion Fund data missing.
Total expenditure includes: 1989-1993 ROP; for the remaining periods, ROPs, NOPs and Cohesion Fund.
2012
Ireland CF for 89-93, NOPs for 94-99,and, since 2000-2006, ROPs
1989-1993: data on Cohesion Fund allocations missing.
2000-2006: Data on NOPs allocations partly missing and data on NOPs expenditure entirely missing. No expenditure or allocation data for the 2000-2006 Southern and Eastern ROP.
2007-2013: ROPs allocations missing.
Total expenditure includes the following programmes/funds:
Cohesion Fund (1989-1993), NOPs in 1994-99, ROPs in BMW region in 2000-06, ROPs in 2007-13.
2010
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 140 LSE
Case Study Programmes covered
Information gaps
Additional info Last year tracked (for 2007-2013)
Italy - Basilicata
ROPs and NOPs in all periods except for 2007-2013 (ROP only)
No data for 1989-1993. ERDF data only.
- 2011
Italy - Campania
ROPs and NOPs
No regionalised expenditure data for 1989-1993 NOPs; for the 1994-1999 period, data on NOPs and ROPs expenditure is missing for a few measures.
- 2012
Portugal - Algarve
ROPs and NOPs in all periods + Cohesion Fund
Information for some NOPs for 1994-1999 missing.
- 2010
Portugal - Norte
ROPs and NOPs in all periods + Cohesion Fund
- - Unknown
Spain - Andalucía
ROPs for 89-93. ROPs and NOPs in rest of periods
1989-1993: no information on NOPs allocations. and expenditure; no data on ROP allocations.
1994-1999: NOPs and ROPs allocations missing for some measures.
2000-2006: NOPs allocations missing for some measures.
2007-2013: information on NOPs allocations missing for some measures.
Cohesion Fund allocations not available.
Total expenditure for 1994-1999 also includes some Community Initiatives.
2011
Spain - Galicia
ROPs and NOPs in all periods + Cohesion Fund
1989-1993: No data on ROP allocations and MOPs allocations and expenditure.
1994-1999: no data on NOPs allocations.
2000-2006 no data on NOPs allocations.
Cohesion Fund allocations not available.
- 2011
UK - North East England
ROPs only in all periods
No data for 1989-1993. - 2010
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 141 LSE
REFERENCES
Affuso, A., Capello, R. & Fratesi, U. (2011) Globalisation and competitive strategies in
European vulnerable regions, Regional Studies, 45, 657-675.
Applica, ISMERI & WiiW (2009) Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000-2006
Co-Finances by the European Structural Fund for Regional Development (Objective 1 and 2)
(Contract No.2007.CE.16.0.AT.021), Task 2 – Financial Implementation of Structural Funds,
May 2009.
Bachtler, J. & Gorzelak, G. (2007) “Reforming EU cohesion policy”, Policy Studies 28 , pp.
309-326
Bachtler, J. & Mendez, C. (2010) The reform of Cohesion policy after 2013: More
concentration, better performance and better governance?, IQ-Net Thematic Paper No.
26(2), June 2010.
Bachtler, J. & Taylor, S. (1999) Objective 2: Experiences, Lessons and Policy Implications,
Final Report to the European Commission (DG Regio), July 1999.
Bachtler, J., Downes, R., Michie, R., Rooney, M. L. & Taylor, S. (2000) New Structural Fund
Programming: Laying the Foundations, IQ-Net Thematic Paper 6(2), March 2000.
Begg, I. (2010) ‘Cohesion or confusion: a policy searching for objectives’ Journal of
European Integration
Biehl, D. (1991) “The Role of Infrastructure in Regional Development”, in Vickerman, R.
(ed) Infrastructure and Regional Development (London: Pion)
Camagni, R.P. (1991) Interregional disparities in the European Community: structure and
performance of Objective One regions in the 1980s, Paper to the North American Meeting,
Regional Science Association International, New Orleans.
Casavola, P. (2009) Operational Rules and Results in Cohesion Policy Programmes: Analysis
and proposals for conditionalities, Report Working Paper written in the context of the
report “An Agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy”, January 2009.
Cheshire, P. & Magrini, S. (2000) “Endogenous Processes in European Regional Growth:
Convergence and Policy”, Growth and Change 31: 455-479
Ciffolilli, A., Greunz, L., Naldini, A., Ward, T. & Wolleb, E. (2013) Expert evaluation
network. Synthesis of National Reports 2012, A report to the European Commission
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy, January 2013.
CSES (2003) Ex Post Evaluation of 1994-99 Objective 2 Programmes Synthesis Report to the
Directorate General for Regional Policy, European Commission, June 2003.
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 142 LSE
CSIL and DKM (2012) Ten Projects Observed: Ex Post Evaluation of Investment Projects Co-
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) or Cohesion Fund (CF) in the
Period 1994-1999, Final Report, European Commission.
Davies, S. (2011) Interactions Between EU Funds: Coordination and Competition, IQ-Net Thematic Paper No. 28(2), June 2011.
De la Fuente, A. & Vives, X. (1995) “Infrastructure and education as instruments of regional
policy: evidence from Spain”, Economic Policy 10(1): 11–54
ECOTEC (2003) Ex-Post Evaluation of Objective 1 1994-1999 A Final Report to the
Directorate General for Regional Policy, European Commission, May 2003.
European Commission, Directorate General XVI, Regional Policy and Cohesion (undated) The
New Programme period 2000-2006: Methodological Working Papers. Working Paper 3,
Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation: An indicative methodology, available online from
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/working/doc/indic_en.pdf (last
downloaded 12 September 2013).
European Commission (2013a) Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme
implementation 2007-2013, Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions,
Brussels, 18.4.2013, COM(2013) 210 final.
European Commission (2013b) Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 on programme
implementation 2007-2013, Commission Staff Working Document, Accompanying the
document to the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, Brussels,
18/04/2013, SEC(2013) 129.
European Commission, Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy (2013) Results
Indicators 2014+: Report on Pilot Tests in 23 Regions/OPs Across 15 MS of the EU, Brussels,
January 2013, DG Regio B.2 D (2012).
European Commission (2012) EVALSED: The resource for the evaluation of Socio-Economic
Development, DG Regio, European Commission, Brussels.
Honohan, P. (ed.) (1997) EU structural funds in Ireland: a mid-term evaluation of the CSF
1994-99 Policy Research Series Paper No. 31 Dublin: ESRI.
Malecki, E.M. (1997) ‘Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local,
regional and national change’
Mendez, C., Kah, S., & Bachtler J. (2010) ‘Taking stock of programme progress:
Implementation of the Lisbon agenda and lessons for Europe 2020’, IQ-Net Thematic Paper,
27 (2), European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions: Final Report
EPRC 143 LSE
Nordregio (2009) The potential for Regional Policy Instruments (2007-13) to contribute to
the Lisbon and Gotenborg objectives for Growth, Jobs and Sustainable Development, Final
Report to the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy, Brussels
Polverari, L., McMaster, I., Gross, F., Bachtler, J., Ferry, M. & Yuill, D. (2005) Strategic
Planning for Structural Funds in 2007-13, IQ-Net Thematic Paper No. 18(2), 2005.
Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2001) “Is R&D investment in lagging areas of Europe worthwhile?
Theory and empirical evidence”, Papers in Regional Sciences 80: 275-295.
Schneider, F. (2005) ‘Shadow economies around the world: what do we really know?’
European Journal of Political Economy 21, 598-642
SWECO (2008) Final Report - ERDF and CF Regional Expenditure. Contract No
2007.CE.16.0.AT.036, 9 July 2008.
Taylor, S. & Promé, C. (1997) Structural Funds Synergies – the ERDF and ESF in Objective 2
programmes, IQ-Net Thematic Paper 2(2), June 1997.
Taylor, S., Bachtler, J., Josserand, F. & Polverari, L. (2004) Achieving the aspirations of the
2000-06 programming period, IQ-Net Thematic Paper 14(2), August 2004.